Top 10 Things The Church Has Gotten Right?
August 30th, 2007 | by Scott |This list was suggested to me as a potential Top 10 Tuesday. And I have to admit it has had me stumped ever since.
It’s not that I’m so cynical and jaded that I don’t think I can feel the list it’s just that there is an important hurdle that we have to clear in order to answer the question: What is the church?
Now the answer to that initial question is a lot broader for me that some. I don’t believe that the church refers only to those who worship at a Church of Christ.
So, with a more ecumenical understanding of the word “church” how do you answer that question? What have “we” gotten right? Is it even answerable in the ecumenical sense?
19 Responses to “Top 10 Things The Church Has Gotten Right?”
By Shane on Aug 30, 2007 | Reply
Apparently not the penal substitution theory of atonement in your view (or mine, for that matter…but that is a different matter and it hardly matters anyway).
By Scott on Aug 30, 2007 | Reply
Definitely not penal substitution which automatically places us in the minority. And that is just the problem: there is such a wide ranging array of positions that it’s hard to quantify the norm.
There does seem to be large consensus among Christian about the Trinity and the salvific power of the Christ.
But what else?
By len on Aug 30, 2007 | Reply
I believe I am the one who suggested this. I am a Free Will Baptist, so I do have a more ecumenical sense in mind than simply any one denomination. I think of the church as all of us, whether we believe others are included or not.
The more I think about it I do realize how difficult this topic is. I still believe in the importance of a penal substitution on the cross. I don’t think that is the only aspect, but I do feel it is important and necessary. Can we say that the centrality of the cross is one thing? The resurrection?
By len on Aug 30, 2007 | Reply
Scott, I find it interesting that you disagree with the penal substitution of the cross, but a few months ago you listed “In Christ Alone” at the top of your praise and worship song list. That song has phrases like “and on the cross as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied for every sin on Him was laid”.
By Scott on Aug 30, 2007 | Reply
At the moment I lean more toward a kaleidoscopic view of atonement but that is open to change. I would agree that consensus is there for the cross and the resurrection. I would lump that in with the salvific power of Christ as I mentioned.
By Scott on Aug 30, 2007 | Reply
I’m not sure where I am in the atonement debate. As I mention above I hold a kaleidoscopic view that assimilates parts of each argument. But the whole issue involves a great amount of wrestling–primarily with the scope of God’s wrath.
By len on Aug 30, 2007 | Reply
How are things in the search for a new church? I have been praying…..whether or not it does any good!
Just let me say that it is good to have you back. I do appreciate this site so much. You have a place of refreshing here. Thanks for what you do.
By LukeD on Aug 30, 2007 | Reply
Just a thought…
How important is it that we completely understand atonement…PSA, Christus Victor, a mixture, something else…?
Isn’t it more important that we know that it did happen, rather than how it happened?
I mean, I can’t fully comprehend the incarnation either, but it doesn’t keep me up at night.
By Greg Brooks on Aug 30, 2007 | Reply
Scott,
You’re a universalist who doesn’t subscribe to penal substitution? I thought penal substitution requires universalism. Jesus takes the rap…the whole rap…and there’s no rap left for anybody.
I guess it’s ok though now that I read you’re a kaleidoscopist.
I’m going to start a Wikipedia article on kaleidoscopism, its history and adherents.
By Scott on Aug 31, 2007 | Reply
I prefer to regard myself as a Redemptive Reconciliationist who believes that the atonement is far too vast and comprehensive to be held down by a singular theory. And this view is not novel. You could start an article but I would not be the originator nor the only “adherent.”
Simply put, I believe that much of the atonement involves putting to death the myth of redemptive violence, of Jesus making all things well. But that is a different story.
By Doug Freeman on Aug 31, 2007 | Reply
Scott, this all sounds like mass confusion. Whats the purpose?
By Justin on Aug 31, 2007 | Reply
I don’t think universalism requires the said atonement theory.
If anyone believes that God being killed on a cross was the only way our sins could be forgiven… that just doesn’t make sense. Jesus, before he died mind you, told people their sins were forgiven. Was he forshadowing or lying?
God can do whatever he wants. Sending a part of his being to earth to be killed by the powers of this world was a message. I am the giver of life, and I have overcome. Do not fear death, but life your life like I lived among you.
That beings the reconciliation of the earth to the way God intended it to be. Too bad that we missed the point.
By Justin on Aug 31, 2007 | Reply
Also, I think something, that at least the c of c has gotten right is the autonomy thing.
I think its great, at least in theory, that churches can determine in their own communities how things are going to work. Granted, that has led to divisiveness amongst those with a church of Christ sign out front (with some sort of street name tagged on somewhere) but allowing flexibility like that empowers churches to move and grow in the direction they need to serve the community they are in.
I think the bigger denominations have more trouble with that, since their funding is determined upon mob rule of sorts… which also causes divisiveness. Just look at the history of the Baptist Church.
By JTB on Aug 31, 2007 | Reply
Autonomy? I thought Jesus prayed for unity? That we may all be one, as he and the Father are one–something like that, anyway…somewhere in John…
I think asking the question ecumenically leads me to an answer composed of dazzling and short-lived moments in the history of the church. Sending money to the church in Jerusalem. Nicaea, maybe. Not settling on official atonement theory in a council
St. Francis of Assisi. Julian of Norwich. The 95 Theses. The Barmen Declaration. (…and?)
Of course, in between these epiphanies…it’s all a muddle.
By Doug Freeman on Aug 31, 2007 | Reply
Len, my mother was a Free Will Baptist. Since she has been deceased over 40 years, I would like your thoughts on baptism as related to the FWB today.
By Scott on Aug 31, 2007 | Reply
That might be a better category–moments in Church History where we were hitting on all cylinder so to speak. Other than that…
By Greg Brooks on Aug 31, 2007 | Reply
I meant that penal substitution necessarily requires universalism, not the other way around.
By len on Sep 1, 2007 | Reply
Doug,
Our belief is that baptism is a necessary Christian ordinance. We define the necessity being for obedience not for salvation. There may be pockets of difference is FWB, but I know of none who would say you aren’t saved until you are baptized.
Where did your Mom live and go to church? I have family that has pastored in Arkansas for years.
By Doug Freeman on Sep 2, 2007 | Reply
Len, we are originally from south Mississippi. My mom was born in 1887, and I am the youngest of 7 kids and I was born in 1927. Since I left home at 17, i really did not know much about her early christian life. My dad died when I was a year old. What prompted me to ask the question was that my mom had told me she was a member of the FWB church and had been baptized for the forgiveness of sins. You are the first person that I have had the opportunity to ask if this was then and now the purpose of baptism in the Free Will Church. I think you answered it. Anyway, if there is anyone that makes it to heaven, my mom will be there. Thanks for your response and maybe we can correspond to other questions. You know Scott is my son but I have a hard time keeping him in line.