How Did We Get To This Point?

Written by Pastor Nuckols Thursday, 07 January 2010 09:12

How could the orthodox church which began with definite concepts of event, means of grace and sacramental life have become transformed into the present Protestantism, often so indefinite and nebulous?  Whenever the focus of those gathered around Christ’s altar is NOT the Word and the Sacraments, there arises a new church theology and practice, and one at deference to those who do center themselves around the Word and Sacraments.  For example, in the early church, after the horrible martyrdom of many within the Christian church by the Roman Empire, and as the Christian Church became universally accepted by the masses, her preaching adapted to the general public, and her worship sometimes pro forma; worship which, in some of their opinion, was more intense, more spiritual, and called for more dedication.  These persons were offended by being put in the same category with ordinary Christians who were operating on so low a level of intellect and spirit, utilizing and highlighting the rudimentary means of salvation, the Word and the Sacraments.

Whatever the cause of this elitist sentiment within Christiandom, certainly it was there.   The Valentinians, one example of such harbingers of the Word and Sacraments alone, found the preaching within the Church to consist predominantly of childish moralizing, offering nothing to challenge the enlightened ones within the congregation.  Hence, the Church’s sacramental life also was an affront to their spirituality.  The sacramental life with its simplicity was seen to be unefficacious and uneventful, offering nothing more than a symbolism bereft of any true power.  These members of the Christian church considered this base materialism, this incarnational theology, this sacramental view of God’s work on man to be capturing ordinary Christianity, leaving them unenlightened and unspiritual.  Thus, they felt compelled to separate themselves from the ordinary Christians.  Probably most of them remained formally attached to some local church, in order to participate in some, or all of its activities, but meanwhile operated, at least to their own satisfaction, on an entirely different level from the ‘non-enlightened’ members, that is in a special type “small group”.  These enlightened ones would be sustained by a pneumatic reading of Scripture, as opposed to that proclaimed from the pulpit.  They would be further aided at times by special literature, and by discovering a more profound insight into Christian symbols and their relevant application.  Bo Giertz’s, The Hammer of God, as a complete work strikes home this fact by typifying this enlightened point of v within the various parishes and pastors of that region, and its lack of any value for the overall health of the church, as well as her children’s faith.

The elitist nature of such ‘enlightenment’ was perhaps its greatest threat to the orthodox church.  In any large religious organization, there will be, of course, many shades of orthodox confessions.  An elitist attitude, however, poses a real danger: it divides a congregation into factions based upon differing and non-harmonious confessions.  In this instance, it alienated Christians into a perceived higher level of concerned, spiritual, creative Christians, on the one hand, and a perceived lower level of apathetic, materialistic, and spiritually dull Christians, on the other.  This partition not only endangered the peace of the common confession of the faith and unity of the Church, but also, struck at something very close to the heart of the Gospel.  Thus, Bo Giertz, on these special “small group ministries” that were formed for heightened sanctification:

“He explained that he too, before his conversion, was all for the church, had been a member of the church council, and had supported every measure taken to put an end to anti-religious activities in the nation, although he had with heart and soul, and day after day, betrayed Jesus by his disobedience.  But after he had come to understand Jesus’ demand for a radical and uncompromising obedience, he had been forced to sacrifice all external interest and place himself instead under the inward guidance of God. . . The important thing was not what one believes but what one does.  The living Word of God, which is something other than the letter, penetrates directly to the heart.  It fills the soul with the clear light of the Spirit, as soon one is ready to obey. . . Only one thing remains: the clear demand to dare at every moment to do just what God commands, without consideration for the opinions of men, without regard for religious custom, ancient dogmas, or traditional beliefs about what the Bible teaches.”[1]

It has been said that the test of orthodoxy is whether it is able to build a church rather than a club, or a school, or a sect, or merely a series of concerned religious individuals.  For the ancient gnostics, the church had value only insofar as it could assist individuals in their search for enlightened knowledge and not on the communion into which they were knit and sustained.  Even that function was a temporary one, for as the gnostic teacher Heracleon explained, “People at first are led to believe in the Savior through others,” but once they are in contact with the source itself, “they no longer rely on mere human testimony.”[1]  Gnosticism, then, would see any sort of ecclesiastical organization or confession of faith to be, at best, a necessary evil.  This would include also the unity derived from the “one baptism” and from the fellowship shared at the altar.

            Modern Evangelicals follow Abraham Kuyper’s point of view that lifts up the “liberty of conscience” which enables every man to serve God according to the conviction and the dictates of his own heart, making it very personal.  On the theological left, Adolf von Harnack took the position that the authentically spiritual is composed of those things that are inward, spontaneous and ethical as opposed to the outward, organized, ceremonial, and dogmatic.[2]  Interestingly, yet sadly, both parties were united in a common religion with little regard for Church.

            This prevailing American suspicion of the churchly and the sacramental led to the rising influence of anti-churchly and anti-sacramental types of Protestantism.  Whether evangelical or liberal, American denominationalism has emphasized the personal, private vision and commitment of the individual believer.  As Troeltsch said of the sect-type religion,

“It tries to transform these groups [churches] from confessional unities into mere organizations for administration, offering a home to very varying minds and energies.  It is opposed to the ecclesiastical spirit by its tolerance, its subjectivism and symbolism, its emphasis upon the ethical and religious inwardness of temper, its lack of stable norms and authorities.”[3]

The normal religion, therefore, in America became a denominational religion, which people “affiliated” with, had “preference” for, “joined” in the same way that they became affiliated with the Elks Club, preferred the Republican Party and joined the Masonic Order.

             How then could what began with definite concepts of event, means of grace and sacramental life have become transformed into the present Protestantism, often so indefinite and nebulous?  Is it possible that Calvin himself unwittingly left a loophole for gnostic misinterpretation and even gnostic syncretism?  Even Wendel, the great student and advocate of Calvin’s theology, conceded that there was room for ambiguity in Calvin’s doctrine of the sacraments.  He understood Calvin as believing that “we may attain to it [union with Christ] by other means, such as preaching, the reading of the Bible, or prayer,”[4] that is, by other means than through God’s appointed means of salvation, the sacraments.  This open question was to lead his North American followers onto a lonely road and, finally, into a gnostic way far removed from “the ancient paths, where the good way is.” (Jer. 6:16)  Again, Bo Giertz summarizes this lack of perspicuity  and certainty:

 “Today it has become clear to me that the Christian faith is a sacred heritage, which must be faithfully preserved, if it is not to be dissipated.  There is only one Savior.  He has lived once here on earth; He has spoken certain definite words which can never be changed or recalled, and He has accomplished saving works, whose validity endures to the end of time.  As long as the world lasts, all Christianity is bound to this Jesus Christ.  Just as no one could be a disciple of Jesus during His lifetime only by agreeing with this or that word which He spoke, or by acknowledging the principle of love or something else which one selected from His teaching, so it is no more possible for anyone to be a Christian today by holding to an abbreviated, reinterpreted, or modernized gospel.  In those days a man was a disciple by following just this Jesus of Nazareth, hearing Him, obeying, believing, and accepting Him.  Today, one becomes a disciple by being united with this same Jesus of Nazareth, being baptized to Him, nurtured by Him in His church, and receiving His gifts.  These gifts are the same today as then.  The same words reach us through the Bible, the same feast is celebrated in the Lord’s Supper, the same forgiveness is pronounced in the absolution.  One and for all, He suffered and died and rose again.  Once and for all, the faith that embraces all this has been delivered to the church.  And this is the holy and unchangeable faith for which the Word here bids us contend.”[5]

[1] Bo Giertz.  The Hammer of God.  (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1960), pp. 309-310.