The understanding of truth and church are fundamental to ministry. A German Protestant professor in Zurich, Emil Brunner opened up for me new perspectives on each. He is regarded as one of the top four or five Protestant systematic theologians of the mid-20th century.
He saw Truth as Encounter, the name of his book. In my philosophy and seminary days, I thought truth was presented in books that had carefully formulated propositions all in a logical order.
In contrast, Brunner highlighted that truth is relationships experienced, not doctrine tightly defined. Encountering Jesus is the truth, the way, the life. Life-changing encounters happen in the heart, not just the head. Heart-work is done by the Holy Spirit. As Jesus said, the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.
The other fundamental new perspective came through his book The Misunderstanding of the Church. In his time when most church leaders thought of church, they had in mind church institutions, which in Europe were well developed over centuries. They saw the Christian church of the first several centuries as the “primitive” church. The “early” church is a better name. I regard the early church as the best source for re-learning how to do church more effectively in our times.
Emil Brunner was at his peak in the 1950s, when the ecumenical movement was at its height. This was a time when institutional church leaders tried to work out their differences and be united. A few mergers happened, like the one that produced the United Church of Christ. But the movement soon died.
Brunner was telling them they had the wrong understanding of church. It is fundamentally the fellowships brought together by the Holy Spirit. These exist prior to whatever institutional form they take on. He called for a greater appreciation of the freedom the Spirit brings. Some institutional churches seem intent to limit that freedom. Many believers who have learned the Spirit’s freedom refuse to have anything to do with institutional churches that are intent on restricting them in ways they personally find unnecessary.
Extending his starting point brings two fresh approaches to organizing the fellowships of the Spirit at the congregational and denominational levels.
There is no biblically prescribed organizational form a congregation should follow. Paul distinguishes overseers and helpers. The Greek words from which we get bishop and deacon were everyday language for those functions. The category of elders was adopted from the synagogues and basically meant recognized, trusted leaders. The category of “clergy” does not exist in Scriptures, nor is there evidence for a special ordination to that elevated office.
Informal fellowships need some structure to survive. The function of that formalized organization is to look after the health and safety of the underlying fellowship: provide for the spiritual welfare and growth of the participants, resolve conflict, take responsibility for property and plan for the future.
Judging by the declining health of so many traditional congregations, their leaders have not been doing a good job. Most are responsible and mature men and women who are trying to make sensible decisions within the traditional options they inherited. Those who are really failing are the spiritual leaders of churches that have drifted away from recognizing the authority of Scriptures and the presence of the supernatural at work around us. They don’t have a conceptual framework for appreciating the work of supernatural Holy Spirit today or for understanding the concept of Spiritual energy different from the human energy available to social clubs.
Denominational structures need to leave behind any notion that they are the church. The defining fellowships are at the congregational level. Headquarters exist to help the congregations lead their underlying fellowships effectively. It is foolish to think that a small group of national leaders can speak for all the million or more believers in their national church.
In the community church movement, the emerging effective congregations don’t form highly defined denominations. They develop informal networks with other leaders and congregations who share interests. They may be involved in two or three networks at the same time. This is especially true in mission work.
For networks versus denominations, see my 1987 book Evangelical Style and Lutheran Substance.
Ultimately we are called to be Jesus disciples in the world. Congregations exist to equip and support those who share a common understanding of faith and its traditions. Denominations allow congregations, worshiping communities, to partner for the same purpose.
Yes, denominations should be serving congregations. The congregations are prior, just like Paul’s house churches were basic. Today most denominations are not keeping up with the huge changes happening in our culture. The answer is not new denominations but rather networks of churches that are helping each other. There are differences in basic theology, but not as much now as a hundred years ago. Evangelicals do read their Bible, and most today catch the significance of God’s grace. I recently saw a Nazarene catechism that could easily be Lutheran, including infant baptism. Thanks for your continued work interpreting the times as they affect young adults.
Dr. Lueke:
The Spirit works through institutions as demonstrated by Christ’s words in Matthew 23:2-3 which recognizes the authority of the office (Moses’ seat) apart from the individuals occupying it. In John 11:51 the high priest prophesies because of the office. St. Paul further exhorts in 2 Timothy 1:6-7 to “stir into a flame the gift [identified as the Spirit in v.7] received from the laying on of my hands…”
I do not deny that the Spirit works through individual experience, but here the spirits must be tested as to whether they acknowledge Jesus as Lord, and this includes actions as well as words.
Obviously, the most institutionalized churches are the largest, even in America, as a glance at any Roman Catholic parish will tell you.
Contrary to your claim that the New Testament knows of no “clergy,” Webster’s 7th New Collegiate Dictionary’s first definition is “The body of men ordained to the service of God in the Christian church.” In Titus 1:5 Paul tells Titus to ordain elders (“presbyters” the source of the English word “priests”) in every city. In Acts 20, Paul sends for the elders of the Ephesian church. So, obviously, there is a body of men in the New Testament ordained to the service of God in the church.
Regarding national leaders who speak for the church- their authority is to speak the truth according to God’s Word. That is the authority that matters, not the will of the people which pertains to another kingdom.
Human behavior, even human feelings must be shaped and molded by institutions. Organizations that throw off old institutions soon develop new ones as restrictive as the old. Like a secret handshake, they may serve to show who is “in” and who is “out.” There are some districts in our beloved synod where, if you did not speak Church Growth you were out, others I suppose where speaking Confessional Lutheran got you an “in.” Our commitment to a vision leads us to favor those who share, or at least mimic, our vision, and often mimicking the words is the first steps toward adopting that vision.
I have been an “organization man” all my adult life. Structure is needed for any group to survive very long. Because I know institutionalized organization so well I can see their deficiencies when they stay stuck in old patterns. Unfortunately, organizational politics too often freeze old structures so that the national structures loose their effectiveness.
I have studied the references you give for “institutional” terms like ordain and office, from the perspective of use in the New Testament. In the NT there is not word for clergy; Websters dictionary reflects the later development in the Roman Catholic institution. Paul told Titus to “put some order” in the churches of Crete. Designating a lead elder is not at all what ordination to a separate class became centuries later. I can find five separate uses of the Latin officium in our Lutheran Confessions. Basically it means function. We often interpret it as social class much higher than common people, the laity.
The early church focused on function and found leaders with spiritual gifts of effective leadership. They are the best model for changing our church cultures to be more effective today.
Our church body is split evenly between missionaries and guardians. The guardians are quite happy when the institutions stay the same. It is the missionaries who get restless and look for new ways to support their mission effectiveness. The present tension can not last much longer without something happening. Only God knows what that will be.
Dave
When Christ set apart the 12, and the Holy Spirit set apart Paul and Barnabas, and the 11 set apart Matthias, you have clergy in the sense defined by Webster. Like “Trinity” which is implicit in the New Testament though the word is coined later for the concept, so clergy, those set apart for service in the Church is part of the fabric of the Church, then and now.
Good discussion.
What I am trying to express is that it is questionable to take current practices and justify them by NT terms. My reading of Acts and Paul’s letter is that they recognized leaders, but not by “office” but by function. I Cor 12 is pivotal, and I am amazed at how its meaning was overlooked over the centuries. “Clergy” today means leaders who occupy a certain office in churches by virtue of high education. Then there is everybody else, the laity. For Paul, everybody was a ministry with their own special gifting and interest.
To get to this broader meaning one has to show the limits of our inherited culture.
Of course, you are as liable to be influenced by 20th Century assumptions as anyone else, and the functional reading of the ministry is much more in tune with our current cultural assumptions than is the holiness (“set apart for Me”) through laying on of hands model.
I suspect that one issue involved is “expertise.” In the 20th/21st Century we decided that real expertise is understood as “leadership” (I saw this in my Education Specialist’s training at Wayne State which was making the transition from stressing administration to stressing leadership). The Apostles, selected first then trained for 3 years (suspiciously like our seminary system) had the expertise as chosen witnesses; then those trained by the Apostles had the expertise in the following generation; then those who could read the apostolic scriptures and were apt to teach were the authorities recognized in the following generations.
One reason we do not see eye-to-eye on some of these matters is that I read history looking for continuity, and you may see discontinuity; thus the hierarchical view of the church expressed by Ignatius the pupil of John on his way to martyrdom (who stresses obedience to the bishop) is a reflection of St. Paul who declared a man excommunicate without waiting for a voters’ meeting.
But here is the kicker- hierarchy is ultimately functional. The denomination with the best growth in America, decade after decade, is the Roman Catholic Church. They had mega churches before it was fashionable among Evangelicals.
Hello Dave. I enjoyed this article so much and it was like a breath of fresh air to know that Brunner, in his time, knew the importance and necessity of the power of the Holy spirit in church fellowships. It is interesting he did not identify “congregations” but “fellowships” which feels more personal. It is as what you have been concentrating on and trying to get across to people – the value of the Holy Spirit in our daily lives and, especially, as we function as church goers.
Thank you for continuing to be passionate and vibrant in your articles about the power of the Holy Spirit. Hopefully, we will open our “heart door” wider and let the Holy Spirit have a constant welcoming home.
Well done Dave & well said Elaine. Blessings
Thanks again, Elaine. I appreciate your encouragement.
Christ has established the preaching office (Matthew 28:16-20, Luke 24:45-49, John 20:21-23). While Paul and Peter refer to those in this office by a few different names: episcopos, prebyteros, and poimaino, it is that same, necessary, preaching office. Though the word “clergy” is not in Scripture, it is most certainly Biblical (just as the Trinity is). This office is recognized by the Church through the laying on of hands, that is ordination (1 Timothy 4:14). Again, Biblical.
As to the “declining health of traditional congregations” that is flat out satanic slander which exists only to rip apart the Church.
The key question is the meaning of “office.” Today we tend to think of the “office” of pastor or bishop as a source of authority to be heeded by others. In the New Testament, those roles are really functions, performed by those gifted by the Spirit for special ministries contributing to the common good of the fellowship (1 Cor 12). Everybody is a minister. Some ministries clearly involve leadership. Elders were those who took on responsibility for a synagogue, which was the model early Christians followed. Bishop and Deacon seem special today but were common descriptions for overseers and helpers.
Obviously, any grouping needs leaders for the long haul. My caution is not to read back into the early church the practices and vocabulary of today’s churches. Yes, certainly there is the function of public preaching and leadership on behalf of a congregation, which grants that authority. We today make much more out of “ordination” based on formal education than was the NT necessity to put order into house churches by designating someone as leader. The basic qualification was demonstrated leadership and adherence to truth as it was being defined by the apostles. The key was demonstrated ability to lead a group of believers. We have many today in the “office of pastor” who really are not effective leaders. Think “function” of leadership, not so much “office of authority.”
denominations can be a royal pain. I pastor an independent Baptist church, free of any denominational hierarchy. We have no cardinals, no bishops per say, etc. We have pastors which are referred to as elders and bishops in the new testament.
Over 11,000 of such Baptist churches in America. many fellowship together for the purpose of furthering the Gospel. Missionaries, youth camps, youth rally’s etc.
No denomination owns our buildings nor do we pay dues to anybody.
No organization lords over us and it has worked very well for many, many years.
There are also Independent Methodists, Bible & Presbyterian churches, to name a few.
We are not protestant nor are we ecumenical nor do we desire to be.
Our pastors follow the leading of the Holy Spirit and each church has their articles of faith that they follow.
I agree that the local church is the basic unit. Each is a fellowship of the Holy Spirit. Actually our Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has the same structure as the Southern Baptists. Congregations work together to solve problems they could not do alone. But then church problems move on. Our convention (synod) came together to publish material in German and to do missions. But those needs for publications and missions are being met today by other means. So we have networks emerging. I think the day of denominations may well be over.
The big issue at the Reformation was how to gain eternal life. The big issue for traditional churches now is how to attract people into congregational life, as reflected in the continuing decline in attendance.
There is a need for supervision, however. Pastors go astray, congregations lose their focus. There is wisdom in ecclesiastical supervision.