The Divine Foundation of the interrelated Body.
What is the foundation that creates, supports, and drives an interrelational idea of church? I believe that a further explanation of a statement I made in the opening post will help guide such a conversation. I wrote, “So therefore, the Foundation on which we stand as an interrelated body, Christ Jesus, must be represented in a faithful way, a way that is faithful to His revelation of Himself.” It is assumed by all of Christianity that Christ Jesus is the Rock on which we stand. Yet, He is not only the foundation on which we stand, He is the image which we are to bear. This image bearing aspect assumes a particular makeup or structural representation. If this structure, the makeup of the Body, is to rightly represent Christ, it is important to at least have a general understanding of the relational quality of our Christ within the Trinity. To present this from the Biblical text I will focus first on various passages from John’s Gospel.
John 1:1-2 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” (NASB)
This verse forms the foundation of John’s Gospel as it should serve as the foundation of our understanding of the church. Christ’s personhood within the Trinity must serve as the basis for every tenet of our Faith.
John 1:14, 17-18“And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth… For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”
These scriptures bear at least two important tenets for our discussion. First, the Word (Christ Jesus) became one of us in order to explain the Godhead. The Father used the Word’s incarnation as the method of revealing Himself, Himself as three persons that make up One God. In John 14:9-10 Jesus states; “He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me?” He showed us, in Christ, that there is interrelation within the Trinity that cooperates in all things for the sake of the will of the Father.
Secondly, within these three verses are two references to the cooperative characteristics of grace and truth. We will speak more of these later in our discussions but let it suffice now to suggest that “grace” and “truth” serve as the scriptural basis for the qualities of “openness” and “limit” within an interrelational understanding of the Body of Christ. If Christ is full of “grace” and “truth” (in order that He might explain the Father), and we are to represent Him properly, then we must also be characterized by both. Jesus’ words in John 5:30 further explain this quality; “I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.”
The Father and Son are interrelated to an extent that is impossible for us to fully define and in such a way that we are inherently incapable of reproducing. But, we can represent the image of this relation by serving as an interrelated body. John reports Jesus as proposing this very concept on several occasions.
John 10:30 “I and the Father are one.”
John 17:11 “I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are.”
John 17:22-23 “The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.”
We observe, even from these few passages, that Christ desires for us to live in unity not just for the sake of a peaceful existence among Christians but more importantly so that we might represent the relationship that the Son has with the Father. Although I do not agree with every bit of Stanley Grenz’ ethics, he still does a wonderful job in reminding readers that God has revealed Himself to us as a Holy Trinity and wants us to worship and reflect Him as such (See The Social God and Relational Self). Our view of the Body, and thus of the Church, should begin with our understanding of the Head of the Body, Christ Jesus, and the characteristics of His relationship with the Father and Spirit. Give me your thoughts on how viewing such a relationship as the foundation of our ecclesiastical structures might change the way we formulate our local congregations.
23 comments:
thoughts stimulated:
-terrestrial leadership?
-unregenerate attendance?
-weslyan "bands" (james 5:16)
Will,
Always the abstract thinker!
Terrestrial Leadership?: I was thinking more Extra-Terrestrial Leadership with cooperative terrestrial representation. I don’t think we should be trying to form another “Roman Catholic Church.” All joking aside, if by terrestrial leadership you are suggesting a broader section of the congregation being involved in leadership then I can support that. I think that point is one that we should explore more fully as we begin to spell out a more Biblically interrelational ecclesiology.
Unregenerate attendance: I don’t see a conflicting issue here. We would not be trying to motivate every person attending the “church service” to image this interrelational body, just those whose testimony supports their inherent membership in the Body. When those who are not in the interrelated Body view that Body functioning properly then it should be a motivation for them to reexamine their own status before our Holy God. That is not to say that we should not cooperate with the “lost” in humanitarian efforts or political endeavors, but our lack of spiritual interrelation with them limits the depth of accountability and cooperation that we can ask of them and offer to them.
Wesleyan bands: Accountable groups within any congregation have many positives and a sometimes some negatives. The positives are pretty self explanatory. The negatives include clique development, holier-than-thouism, and possible competing loyalties. As long as the purpose of the groups, denial of self and interrelation with the whole, continues to drive their accountability throughout the life of the group then I think that they would serve a very practical way of sponsoring interrelation within that particular congregation of believers.
There is also the aspect of openness within the larger gathering. Although this sort of thing can be risky and possibly detrimental, corporate confession is a good thing at times. It can bring a congregation to its knees in a unified manner and promote humility throughout that local body of believers. In some cases, as in the Asbury revival, it can spread throughout several states and institutions, effecting thousands of lives.
There is still a lot of meat here left to be discussed. Keep the comments comming.
I think that you are right on using this as a founding point.
John 17:22-23 “The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.”
But I wonder if the order of analysis might be to examine the relation that Christ has with the Father versus the necessary relation that we have with Christ as an antecedent to the unity that will flow from it. "I in them and You in Me," So we must start with the idea of becoming interrelational with Christ as a means and an end in that it will then allow us to become interrelationally unified. Then of course all of the "unregenerate attendance" will, by the promise of our Lord, be drawn to Him and then will be able to fall into the fold of interrelationality.
Throughout these discussions I may seem repetitive as I have and will continue to come back to the notion that we must first have Christ as our own personal foundation and capstone because without that first the rest of the discussion is really not very fruitful. I realize that we are assuming this with one another here, but as we develop a plan of execution and theory for the development of the emerging church then we must look at it not just from the standpoint of government and doctrine, but what will really set us apart and allow us to continue to grow and mature as we help others come into the measure of grace that we are professing. And that foundation must always come back to Christ. I don't think that anyone here is trying to get away from that but I do feel a responsibility to continue to bring it back to that because we as humans have a tendency to try and make it more about a doctrine than about the Doctor. Food for thought.
p.s. to clear up any confusion, trall and malcolm are interchangeable here. ;)
How would constructing a church on a divine foundation differ? In my mind it can be summed up in two points. The first would focus on peoples relationships with God, the second on their relationships with each other (sound familiar?). All other church "activities" would be subject to and evaluated in light of these things. Naturally, how to do these would be dependant on God's self revelation. In sum, focusing on interretionalism is tantamount to putting Christ's two greatest commandments first, our programs, goals and ambitions after or not at all. We are commanded to love, and love is not selfish or self seeking.
As far as seeking the nature of the trinitarian relationship to discover how to define ecclesiology, the most important part of the trinity is not how it is interrelational, but that it is interrelational. This interrelation is built on the character of God, again, love being a main (though not exclusive) element. I say this for fear that we over indulge in theological speculation at the expense of obvious applicability.
I realize this does not provide many definite categories for church structure, but maybe that is the point. If we worry too much about structure, we miss what is really important, I don't say this that we may define doctrines as we please or feel, but merely to keep the main thing the main thing. Interrelationship has as a primary component love (e.g. the divine model), if we lose this main thing, than we cease to be interrelational as we intend to be and end chasing the wind.
i keep thinking I'd be really careful with the "I in them" language because the point is so precise- and I think i ties into the three thoughts i'd previously mentioned this installment to have generated. the following is like a tattered syllogism...hang on tight
If our unity is Christ-that (him) being the all-transcending, all-surpassing bond for a believer, and amongst believers, then we must question the limits of self identity.
Self awareness is the first thing I land on as the fence around individuality (Cogito, ergo sum, and all that) and (insert brief lecture on why humans have to have some sort of non-determined will) I see the first obstacle to the church as a whole. I can chose to be aware of things about myself that only God, outside myself is aware of. Now, that fence around my self awareness is a brick wall, because I'm not letting my brother see the hidden thing inside it. This may not be a problem, considering all the admonitions about controlling tongues that I readin my bible. But, in a perfect world, are there those walls? (acceptng that this is no perfect world) should we be working toward the destruction of this sort of barrier to the end that the unity I'm otherwise sharing only vertically may also be shared horizontally? So that the church is less like a koosh ball (united only to a common core), and more like a basket ball (a textured unity)? I see the interrelational church only achieving success with the progress of relative personal transparency, which is why I brought up the weslyan blah blah blah.
the issue (leadership /and the unregenerate) diverge for me here.
The unregenerate
The unregenerate are not connected to the common core, are not part of the unified mass - can they still really be interrelated to? (loved into the kingdom?)
leadership
before I go a rant about servant leadership...i stop myself and say "diakonos"
okay
ecclestiacal leadership strctures in an interrelational model seem antithetical to most heirarchical models. 12' platforms and pulpits are bull hockey. choir lofts? praise band ensembles? CCM?
okay I'm ranting. mostly, I hope to be kicking a hornets nest.
not literally.
ow.
Will: I would like to respond to more than this small portion of the last two comments, but I want to say a quick word concerning the "interrelation of the unregenerate." One must go back to our initial outline of the definition of the "Interrelationl Church." The interrelation of which we speak entails a common foundation, Christ. The unregenerate do not yet have this common foundation and thus are not interrelated into the Body. Ultimately we cannot interrelate with them on anything of real significance because we start from a different platform. We may share a common relation to a particular subject matter but as the conversation digs deeper one will find that we trully are not interrelated on the subject. We are two different trees with branches that have intertwined at a given spot but yet are not in any sense of one kind. Am I making any sense? We may relate with the lost but we are not interrelated until we share a common foundation. They are creations of the same God but do not relate to Him as we do as of yet.
But yes, our Love can serve to help them find the Foundation that interrelates all that would believe! As far as the role of love, in as much as it references back to the grace of God, it would be helpful to look back at Christ, the Logos, being characterized by grace and truth. Though grace wishes to interrelate all with its source, the truth inherent within the source limits the interrelation to only those who are willing to believe in the grace and truth of Christ.
that last sentence belongs in a theology text book.
i am blogger
Just like a Gator to suggest that all things important in life revolve around UF. Their minds are swamps that must be drained of the debauchery that it bred there. But we digress, back to the discussion.
Alright, lets converse on some of your proposals one by one.
Malcolm, you said: "So we must start with the idea of becoming interrelational with Christ as a means and an end in that it will then allow us to become interrelationally unified. Then of course all of the "unregenerate attendance" will, by the promise of our Lord, be drawn to Him and then will be able to fall into the fold of interrelationality."
I think I understand what you are trying to protect. The individual's initial confrontation and subsequent relationship with Christ is of the utmost importance. But, should we encourage this meeting between Christ and the sinner to take place on some lonely plane where the two can be alone, or should we help the convert to understand that when they step into Christ, they step into us. When they believe in Christ, they believe in the Body. When they accept Christ, they accept their brothers. I think this is why John states, in his first epistle, "But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes." A loving interrelation with one's brother is an inherent qualification of participating within the Body.
This is why I suggest the order be to focus on the community aspect of our relationship with Christ rather than forming such a foundation on our individual relatinship with Christ.
Jason, I like the use of 1 John there -because i see no stretching of the text.
which is an indirect way of saying "sweet"
but I would suggest that we be careful to make precise verbal statements to protect ourselves from ever suggesting approval of a communal atonement (indulgences/rosaries/prayers for the dead)
I really think that we have to keep the Pauline "body" analogy before us.
I completely agree. If I somehow slip and use "community" or "communal" as a descriptor of the church or our relationship with God, I am always thinking in terms of the interrelation of the Body of Christ. What's wrong with rosaries? They're pretty.
I think I was a little misunderstood. My point is that if we will focus more on our ability to be interrelational with the Head of the body then it will by default allow us to be in better communion with the rest of the body. Which is the unity and love that will bring more into the fold. I just think that if everyone will really cultivate their relationships with Christ then the rest will take care of itself. If that is not true then I think we are relying on something other than grace to transform us.
And what's a rosarie, isn't that what all the Buddhists carry with them? ;)
I hear you Malcolm, excellent point. You are speaking of alone time with the Lord, which we should all have. You are right in sugesting that that time serves to "really cultivate" our "relationship with Christ." And that time will help us to better relate with the Body as a whole. I just think it important to never see that alone time as somehow more spiritually foundational than time interrelating with the Body. For ultimately, we can not be one, as the Father and Son are one, unless we are interrelating within Him.
Although our minds are seperate launching pads for thought, they are not seperate launching pads for attaining spiritual truth. Spiritual truth comes to us through the interrelation of the Body with the Head. Thus, no one can consistantly draw near to God apart from the rest of the Body.
I do not wish to talk in circles here. I agree with you on the importance of devotional time alone with the Savior. But, ultimately to better understand my Savior I must interrelate with the Body. Are we in agreement?
There are two reasons for me not to comment right now (but of course I am going to do so): 1) This is a post on John 17 and there are 17 comments presently, mine will make 18. 2) To circumnavigate the discussion presently would take an enormous amount of time and typing. The discussion is quite large now.
One thing that I would submit to the discussion here is the nature of objectivity and subjectivity that I think Will (not me) has brought up. Subjectivity being essentially cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am). The starting point being ourselves, our faith, our relation to Christ, our relation to one another. The other approach is something like Deus cogitat ergo sum (God thinks therfore I am). In this case we do not start with ourselves but with God, it is not our faith but what God has done in us, Christ has bound himself to us inseparably in covenant and thereby we are bound to one another.
This may seem subtle and semantic; however, it most definitely will have affect on how we view ourselves, our bretheren and those we perceive as unregenerate.
On that note Will, by way of excursus, let me take up some thoughts on the unregenerate. The idea of the unregenerate in the church should not surprise us. That is where the unregenerate go to become regenerate. There is no salvation outside Christ's Church, for His church is the peoeple who were once not His people. Second, there is not one person that we as created beings can point to and definitively say, "Yep, that guy is unregenerate." I realize that you are speaking in a more abstract manner and that I am having trouble remembering all that has been said on this post. So if I am missing your point, which may be the case, please be kind enough to direct me here.
I wonder if John Murray's thoughts on the Free Offer of the Gospel, regarding the way that we can in fact say that Christ's death was at once for the whole world and yet only saved the invisible church.
well, "Deus cogitat" sounds good until you realizt that plotinus used that kind of language, so, lets try to be more precise (and so with barbarous latin)maybe "Deus cogitat ego sum + cogito sum, ergo sum"
Jason: Yes. So could we then say the activity of being interrelated is devotion time as well? Definitely, in so far as we keep the transformation of the Body(ourselves included)into the image of Christ as our singular priority.
Will: Can you please translate all of you latin for the simple minded non-academics. It looks like you have a cough. ;)
well, what I said was:
God thinks I am, and I think I am, therefre I am. but I'd revise that anyway.
rather, perhaps: "I think God thinks 'I am'".
In the end, I'd want to avoid makign such a simple statement about human existence that it philosphically permits us to exist ONLY as gods thoughts OR my thoughts.
The point is: I'm convinced that God thinks I exist as an individual - and then, because I'm thinking about myself, I must be self aware. What I'm implying is that I have a cognative awareness about my particular being - an awareness I have about no other being.
Thus, two things.
1) All other equivalent beings are shut out from my self awareness. meaning that even other Christians are wholly on the outside of my self awareness wall unless I let them see in (not -be- in, that's impossible) by being transparent. Thus, non transparency is a hindrance to unity.
2) God, a non-equivalent being, can -see- into ny consciousness whenever he feels like it. If I'm saved, he can -be- in it as well (HOly Spirit?) The thing is...that I think human church unity hinges exactly on the amount to which the H.S. is active in us, and yeah
That was typed quickly, I probably need some editing...
Gentlemen,
I appreciate the depth to which this portion of the discussion has gone. All of your insights have proved thought provoking and foundational to what we are discussing. Now, let’s steer this discussion back to how this foundation is Biblically proven to support interrelation within ecclesiastical structures, and what that would look like.
Feel free to continue any your Latin dialogue on this strain of comments. I will put up a new post soon to get back to the scriptural basis for interrelationalism.
Too much to comment on. Since I got this job and stink commute, I don't have all my former blog-time. argh! I need smaller chunks of topics to discuss. eeek!
Anyway, some things that this sparked in my mind are...
- As believers, we are in Him. He is in us. If we are all in Him, He is in us, and we are being conformed to His image... How could we be developing into anything less than unified like-ness?
- The church will always lack interrelation for us until the consummation of Christ's ministry of reconciliation.
- I had more to say, but I am tired. :-)
Good points EJ. I know you probably meant this but I thought I would clarify it for the rest. We will always be lacking in our ability to actualize our inherent interrelation and thus the need to focus on and strive toward interrelational growth in Christ (or "reconciliation" as you well stated). It is the already/not yet theology of Carl Henry and G. E. Ladd. I think "actualize" is a great word to use in interaction with these subjects. It suggests that something is available but not always utilized or put into action. I hope that I have represented your statment faithfully.
Post a Comment