HT: MetaCatholic
A previously unknown (to me) blog, Inhabitatio Dei, has posted an interesting matrix description of ecclesiology, i.e. the study of the Church. The blogger writes:
From my perspective there are two basic polarities which define the shape of a given ecclesiology. The first is what I term the High-Low polarity, the second I refer to as the Strong-Weak polarity. Within this framework any given ecclesial body could potentially fall in one of four categories, High-Strong, High-Weak, Low-Strong, and Low-Weak.
From the descriptions given, I’d have to say that I’m a Low-Weak, which is undoubtedly the result of growing up in a Restorationist Christian Church environment; I presently attend a Baptist church for many of those same qualities:
Low Church Ecclesiology: Generally suspicious of history and tradition. Emphasizes the Bible as the church’s ultimate authority and preaching is more central then the Eucharist or the liturgy. Churches tend to be structured congregationally (i.e. governed by the local congregation itself or through one or more elders appointed by congregations). Emphasizes salvation as the subjective appropriation and confession of faith in Christ. Generally holds to believers’ baptism. Close connection between salvation, baptism, and committed discipleship in community.
Weak Ecclesiology: Holds a humble and limited view of God’s role for the church in his plan of salvation. The church exists to strengthen and instruct the believer and to witness to God’s work of salvation that takes place solely through God’s action. The church does not participate in God’s action, but points away from itself to God’s action outside of human effort. The emphasis is on the invisible church, the universal body of all people who believe in Christ throughout the world. All Christians are members of this church and that is what is primary. Membership in a local congregation is for edification and growth, but is not central to salvation.
I highlighted the descriptions that stood out to me.
Perhaps as the result of this recent post on ministry, the key question I gravitated toward thinking about was whether the work of the Holy Spirit is directly bound (limited?) to the activities of the Church (strong ecclesiology) or not (weak ecclesiology). I tend to hold the position that it is the Church’s responsibility to proclaim the gospel, but that everything beyond that is the autonomous work of the Holy Spirit and we, as Christians and the Church, ought not try to take credit for that.
9 Comments
More terms for my little brain. I don’t know if I can figure out where I am on the Ecclesiological Church Matrix. I can’t believe I even wrote that. But I read his post and can see the benefit as he describes it. I wonder what Paul would have thought of this. (What!)
Jeff
Sorry for lack of substance.
I’m probably somewhere between a high-weak and low-weak.
I’ll have to say that I’m Low-Weak as well. Here’s a question I have: What was the early church as seen in Acts and the Epistles?
Which early church, TC? The episcopal Jerusalem church, run by James, Peter et al. Or the congregational Greek home churches, spun out of the synagogues and set up by Paul and his assistants?
I didn’t know the church at Jerusalem was episcopal? How is that?
I guess I always viewed the Jerusalem church as run by the original apostles, who were bonded together by their common experience with Christ. The phrase “a hierarchy of bishops who stand in communion with each other” from the matrix description sounded similar to an apostolic communion, at least until they started dispersing across the world.
Plus they seemed, from the gospel descriptions, to be naturally interested in hierarchy – it doesn’t seem a stretch to imagine them sowing the initial seeds of an “episcopal” structure with each leading an area, but relating back to each other.
Plus, Pope Peter had to get training somewhere, right?
Well, I believe we can learn a lot from the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. The dispute was settled after much discussion.
With the presence of the apostles and James, the Lord’s brother, was a sort of an hierarchy. But I don’t believe that that was meant to be the norm.
I believe the norm was eventually going to be a local church governed by a plurality of elders (Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28; Phil 1:1; Titus 1:5).
A sole bishop over a district is anachronistic at best.
Plus, Pope Peter had to get training somewhere, right?
lol…I think Peter might have been the first to fight for congregational house churches. I can see how the apostolic communion was dispersed around the world after the fall of Jerusalem.
I believe the norm was eventually going to be a local church governed by a plurality of elders (Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28; Phil 1:1; Titus 1:5).
TC, I agree with that. However, the temptation of centralization of church hierarchies eventually took over. Even though I’m in the Lutheran church, many people in it like me, feel that local church government should be stronger. The temptation of power-grab in the higher ups need to be tempered.
Kevin, there’s always the temptation for more and more power. I believe that is why we need, as leaders, to go back to Scripture and realize that we are only servants to our people on behalf of Christ (1 Pet 5:1-4).