Mere Christianity and the Marks of a True Church
Michael Brown
in Creeds & Confessions, Ecclessiology, Horton, Roman Catholicism
|
56 Comments
In the latest issue of Modern Reformation, Dr. Horton makes the point in his article, “Whose Orthodoxy? How to Define It and Why It’s So Important,” that confessional Christians would do well to take a page from C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity and recognize that there are more rooms in the house of God than our own. Lewis uses the illustration of Christians from different traditions meeting in the hallway for common discussions. “But it is in the rooms,” says Lewis, “that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is the place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in.”
This is an excellent point, and one which every Reformed Christian should hold dear. Clearly, being Reformed does not constitute mere Christianity, only living in the best room in the house. This room has the most robust fire, the best chairs and meals. If there were a better room, such as the Anglican, Lutheran, or Baptist room, I would live in that one. But it is the Reformed confession and tradition that offers the most robust and complete expression of Christianity to be found on the planet. Why would I live in another room? Nevertheless, there are more rooms in the house, and some wonderful Christians who live in them. It is nice to meet them in the hallway.
Horton points out that the hallway gives us a place to stand together, listen to one another, and a place to speak. The hallway, he says, is made of the ecumenical creeds: “The Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds still provide us with the best definition of orthodoxy. These creeds do not say everything we want to say, of course, but therein lies their strength. In spite of the important differences between Christian churches, there is a place to stand together…In this view of orthodoxy, we have to be on guard against two misinterpretations: to eliminate the hallway, assuming that our room is the only one in the house; and to eliminate the rooms, mistaking our room for the hallway.”
This is precisely why things such as, well, Modern Reformation magazine and The White Horse Inn radio program are so helpful and important. Confessional Protestants from different rooms – Anglican, Reformed, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Lutheran, and Baptist – are able to stand together in the hallway and have (hopefully) helpful discussions that sharpen one another in their confessions, cultivate humility, and guard themselves from one of the most common errors Christians make in our present day, namely, confusing orthodoxy with a cultural or political conservatism. “If we stay holed up in our own rooms all the time,” says Horton, “we are faithful neither to our evangelistic calling in the world nor to our own spiritual health.” He continues,
Ignorant of the pressing questions our neighbors are asking and objections they articulate, we become self-satisfied and our churches spend their energies on introspection, which easily turns to family quarrels of secondary or tertiary matters. Spending some time in the hallway has a way of waking the sleep from our eyes.
Well said. Time spent – but not life lived altogether – in the hallway seems to breed maturity in many ways. Horton’s point dovetails nicely with Lewis’ exhortation, with which Mike closes his article:
When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house.
Ah, but this is where Lewis’ illustration raises a HUGE question: Which traditions have a room in this house?
If the house is Christ’s Church (which is an illustration not original to Lewis, but to none other another than the apostle Paul [Eph 2.19-22]), how can we then identify a legitimate room? Does any tradition which confesses the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds have a room in the house? Is there a room for, say, Rome? Or does Rome have a different house next door? Is it a hallway of the ecumenical creeds that we meet in, or a hallway of a confessed Gospel?
I plan on writing a few posts that apply what Reformed churches confess about the marks of a true church to Lewis’ illustration to see how it holds up. In the meantime, I am interested in hearing from the three or four people in the universe who read this blog. Can “mere Christianity” be reduced to the ecumenical creeds? What constitutes orthodoxy? Who has a room in the house?
It will be most helpful if you have read Dr. Horton’s two articles in the latest edition of MR. (If you don’t subscribe to MR, you should! But until you choose to, you can find the articles here: http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=main&var1=Home).
Reader Comments (56)
Well, I am an only a novice theologian so I dare not offer comment to the questions you raise at this stage of my pilgrimage. I will say that I enjoyed this post very much. I have not yet read my Sept/Oct MR, although, I probably should because unbeknownst to subscribers there is a special bonus issue on "two kingdoms" especially for election year hitting the mail boxes in October! Also, perhaps more people read your blog than actually comment;-)
You are awesome, Michele. Maybe Chuck wants to chime in? (hint, hint)
Thanks for telling us about the bonus issue. I wasn't aware of it.
Great post which has got me thinkin'!!
If we grant that within other traditions that there are people saved by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone, then wouldn't we have to say that those traditions have a room with a door leading to the hallway of mere Christianity? Therefore, Rome has a door, even Osteen-esque churches are part of a room with a door. Granted the doors leading from Rome and from Osteen-type churches into this "true" hallway are just one of a couple of doors leading out of those rooms. If we were in the room of Rome we can imagine this being the smallest, dirtiest, least-used door leading out of that room, but yet by God's grace there are those that choose to use that door maybe unbeknownst to that room's leaders.
So I guess I am imagining a house that has multiple hallways, where only one of those hallways is the true hallway. Even the Reformed room has other doors leading to different hallways (i.e. there is a door that the Federal Vision likes to use). So I would say this true hallway is marked ultimately by a confessed Gospel of which the creeds do play a part (they must also be confessed, but particular things about the creeds must be expressed). There are those from other rooms that can use the door to this hallway upon occasion to discuss and mingle, just to see what it is like, but they are not going to make that their main door. How about this? You can use the creeds to get into the hallway, but to stay and mingle for a longer period of time then you need to have a confessed Gospel. I enjoy talking with others from different rooms, but yet if they are not on the same page as me concerning the foundational truths of the Gospel I am not going to do so for long.
So those are my thoughts. Do they make any sense? Probably not, so sorry!
As usual, I was pleased with Horton's piece (what else can a guy say about another he considers the patron saint of his Reformed conversion?).
Analogies have a funny way of having so much use before they simply breakdown. But I have been intrigued by this one. And I would answer your question with short, sharp and shocked line I once heard Horton utter at the Inn: "We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone on acount of Christ alone...not by our doctrine." That's pretty profound when you think about it. If that's true, Mike, Romanists are quite in the house, along with Easterners and Osteeners, creepy as that might make us feel. The other analogy is closely related, namely that of family. We all have natural family members who drive us up one wall and down another for whatever reasons, while others are easy to love. It seems to me that the former experience has a lot to teach us. I recall Hart making this point to me. Sometimes dysfuntion is bad enough that one simply must remove himself, but that doesn't mean the real bonds have been actually severed.
Sometimes I think we may lose forest for trees in some of this, which is why I think a better grasp of the in/visible church is so vital for everyone. Those who emphasize the invisible church seem to behave as if the stuff of doctrine doesn't really matter, which is tragic for a host of reasons. But, just as much, those of us who emphasize the visible can tip too far and suggest that we are indeed saved by our doctrine. But if Horton is right, and I think he is, I really think we need to consider what might be happening in our thinking that we wonder if Romanists are in or out. If my experiences over the years with my own evangie family is any measure, I think a better tack is to hold out that true souls ought to strive to adhere to true churches before we suggest that true souls may be "out." The latter feels like what my fundies were like, emphasizing the invisible church and in that speculation causing doubt, etc. No, I think the best of Reformed orthodoxy emphasizes the visible church and compels true souls to adhere to true churches. I think we should trust God to make true souls sensitive to this as we emphasize true doctrine, etc.
Wow, that was rambly. Shoulda had my Wheaties this morning. Hope it made some semblance of sense. Sorry.
Zrim,
As always, thanks for your insightful comments. You will notice, however, that I am not asking which individuals are in or out, but which traditions. IOW, does Rome have a legitimate room in the house, or is it a house next door that contains many true brothers and sisters (who just happen to be in the wrong house)?
Of course, every illustration breaks down at some point, but Lewis' illustration raises a big question in my mind: is the hallway made of the ecumenical creeds or a confessed gospel? Either way, it's doctrine. Not that doctrine saves us, but doctrine, at some level, constitutes our common area of discussion.
My question is: what is that common area and which traditions are in the house?
Mark,
Thanks for your elaboration on the illustration. (Although I think I might get lost in the house you created!)
How would you apply what we confess about the marks of a true church (BC 29) to Lewis' illustration? Are there true rooms and false rooms? Is Rome really a broom closet even though it thinks it is the house itself?
I'd be very interested in hearing about whether you think Vineyard church offshoot type charismatics occupy a legitimate room.
Hi David,
Stay tuned. I hope to post something within the next day on the three marks and tease out this whole illustration a little more. In the meantime, however, I will wait for Zrim's and Mark's response. Perhaps they would like to answer you.
Rev. Brown -
My quick, not fully thought out, response is that the true churches have their main entrance, in our hallway, whereas the false churches have their main entrance in the other hallway(s). As for the false churches their backdoor leading into our hallway does allow us to interact with them, and also allows the true Christians (also in BC29) from those rooms the chance to mix with their brothers and sisters in Christ and possibly move to another room.
One other qualification to make my house even more confusing is that there are rooms that have no entrace into the true hallway because there is no common ground on either the creeds let alone the Gospel - they cease to be allowed access to the mere Christianity hallway because they are not Christian! Since these are easy to not give a door I have a hard time, then, in not giving a door to those Christian traditions where there are actually true Christians in their midst.
Again, more confusion! I have a diagram in my head, maybe I will try to draw it out!
I don't know much at all about the Vineyard church and its progeny to comment to David's question. However, if their are people in those "rooms" that truly confess Christ as their Savior then they should at least be given a door so that we can interact with them. Maybe it is a very small door at the end of the hallway with some overhead lights out!
Other so-called Christian traditions that do not confess the Gospel or the creeds have a locked door into our hallway that they need to ask us to have opened!
Mark
So, in your view, Mark, the house is the invisible church, and NOT the visible church. Is that right?
Zrim, how 'bout you?
Thanks Rev. Brown, and Mark.
Mark speaks of people that "truly confess Christ as Savior." But that raises the question of what a legitimate confession of Christ entails. Since these churches have no official membership and vehemently deny the existence of anything but the invisible church, there really *is* no confession so far as I can tell, other than an informal affirmation of the faith in the context of casual conversation - that, and participation in lots of midweek revival services and the like ...
Mike,
Having had extended debates with Catholics over the past month, I can tell you exactly what questions they would raise about this illustration:
1. It is true that "many rooms = one house," but in what sense is it true that "many denominations = one church"? How can LCMS Lutherans be "one" with URC people, or URC people with Reformed Baptists, if they withhold the bread and cup from one another? It's more like a bunch of detached garages with invisible passageways to one another than it is like a house with many rooms. But even then, the doors are sometimes bolted shut.
2. Who gets to determine where exactly the hallway is?
3. If the answer to #2 is "the ecumenical creeds" as you say in your post, then which ones? All of them, or only some of them? And if only some, who gets to determine which ones?
4. If Rome "has a different house next door," whose was built first? Is either of these the actual church that Jesus promised to build?
That's all I can think of now. If an actual Catholic wandered into these fields (to borrow Zrim's imagery), he may have other questions in addition to these.
Jason,
Thanks for posting. I thought of these exact questions which a Roman Catholic would ask. But I am interested to know what you, as a Presbyterian minister, think. How do we apply the marks of the true church to Lewis' analogy? Is the house the visible or invisible church? Is the hallway/common area for discussion made of the ecumenical creeds or a confessed gospel?
BTW, this URC pastor does not withhold the bread and cup from a LCMS Lutheran or Reformed Baptist, provided they are a member in good standing of one of those churches.
You mean I have to take off the mask and give my real opinion? Alter-egos are So. Much. Easier....
Give me a bit and I'll comment again (gotta take off this pope costume first).
I know, I know. And you look good in it too!
Mike,
I am interested to know what you, as a Presbyterian minister, think. How do we apply the marks of the true church to Lewis' analogy?
I don't know that we can in any meaningfully way. What I mean is, if, because we occupy a room in the house, we think we get to determine the rules for whether other occupants can continue to live there, that's all well and good. But it doesn't mean the occupants of other rooms will agree with those rules. If I move to a new neighborhood and then paint my house blue, it doesn't really matter if I then insist that everyone else has to do it too in order to "really" live in that neighborhood. They'll just smile at me politely at parties and inwardly wish I'd move arcoss town.
Is the house the visible or invisible church?
I don't see how it could be either one. Well, let me rephrase that. If one local church will not commune someone from another local church, then regardless of how often they get together for coffee during the week (or, meet in the hallway), they do not have visible unity. When I visited a well-known URC while a seminarian, the elders made it clear that if I hadn't correctly defined Calvin's doctrine of Christ's spiritual presence, they would have refused me fellowship at the Table. Horton has mentioned to me before that Rosenbladt would never commune him. And this is all happening in the Reformed wing of the house!
Is the hallway/common area for discussion made of the ecumenical creeds or a confessed gospel?
Before we answer that we have to determine who gets to decide which creeds count as "ecumenical creeds." If we are going to draw a line after Chalcedon, we have to justify that. But if we somehow decide that the ecumenical councils are Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, then I would say that the hallway must include them, but it doesn't have to be limited to them (in other words, it's both/and--creeds and gospel).
That's where we see the real identity crisis, in my opinion. We call Arminians "brothers in error" while we call Catholics "false brothers" (if they actually believe the teachings of the church). The only consistent avenue is for us to gather all the Reformation churches together (including Lutherans and conservative Anglicans), draft a new creed that we could all sign, and then treat everyone else like outsiders.
And I'm not sure I like that idea either.
Rev. Brown -
I see the house as the visible church, with only the invisible church (those who bear the marks of true Christians) truly going in and out of the doors into the "true church" (invisible) hallway.
Given our conversation outside of this thread I do need to clarify that I am taking the pagan and heretical Christian churches out of the house and putting them outside a locked door.
BTW - I am actually doing something else now, so my mind is not fully engaged in this conversation so I will try to respond better later.
Mike,
The limited value of analogies is coming home to roost. Or, as Calvin said of the secret will of God, “It is a labyrinth from which there is no hope of return.”
As soon as I hit the button I realized I may have wandered away and was making it a question of individual instead of tradition. But I think it inevitably becomes an issue that turns on the distinction between individual/institution. Certainly our tradition sees it this way insofar as we recognize these two necessary realities, whereas T0 and T2 seem both to place unwarranted emphasis on one or the other.
That said, I think I would say that the house is the invisible church. It has to be. The visible is the one on earth. It has to be. After all, if WCF XXV: IV, V teach that “the catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible” and “The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error,” then the visible church cannot be a wholesale choice between Exile Presbyterian and Rome, but more accurately perhaps, that she is *most* pure and *more* visible in Woodenville than in Vatican City. And true souls must be compelled to pursue her, mixed with compromise and hypocrisy as she may yet be. This seems like Protestantism at its best.
(This is why I get confused as to why Rome gets treated specially hard in these questions while T0 traditions are considered “us, only confused.” No, they’re on the same thin ice. The Reformation, like I said at Jason’s house, was a multi-faced battle. The Radicals were considered to be in just as precarious a place as Rome. T0ers are heirs to the Radical ancestry, not “us, only confused.” Being not Roman Catholic doesn’t mean a tradition is mainstream Reformation. Whatever else they show, the Canons of Dordt did not have Rome in mind at all. If a form of unity [!] knows Rome isn't always the principle problem, why do we often miss it?)
Hello Mike,
Interesting. Back in April I wrote something about this from a Catholic point of view. You can find it here. I'd also recommend Fr. Longenecker's book More Christianity, Thomas Howard's Evangelical is not Enough, and Kenneth Whitehead's article "Is There A Mere Christianity?"
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan