In disparate places on Tripp's blog a discussion has risen from the reflections on the occasion of Tripp's testimony at the local Theology on Tap at St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Evanston last Thursday (24 July). The point at issue: the holiness of the Church.
Megan's stance seems to see the Church in terms of relative uselessness. For Megan, it appears that the Church is an organization. I'm not sure that she thinks the Church is merely an organization. I think she would admit that there is a "spiritual" Church that isn't equated with the organizational Church. It is this organizational Church that most often gets in the way of loving the world and living the faith. When the Church (organization) does whatever it is that it is to do well, then Church is helpful. Her experience, it seems, however, has been that the Church (organization) doesn't do things well, in which case, she can take this Church or leave it. If it hinders her from living the faith in a way that makes sense to her, it is the Church's loss. (Megan, if I've got this wrong in any way, please correct me. This is what I've heard you saying.)
Tripp wants to salvage the Church for Megan; though perhaps he could be a bit more clear which of Megan's churches he wants to salvage. I read him to want to salvage it all. He wants Megan to see what he sees, that the Church (organizational and "spiritual") is needed, that we need it as much as it needs us, and that this need plays itself out in reconciliation. The Church should forgive us. But we should forgive the Church. It's the dance of reconciliation.
Not surprisingly, I take exception to these understandings. In brief, I posit what I take to be the Church's historic and biblical understanding of herself. She is the Body of Christ. If we wish to be united to Christ's incarnate body, then we can only do so through the body that incarnates Christ, the Church. If Christ is the only way to union with God, then the only way to union with Christ, because the only place where it can be said the fullness of Christ dwells, is in the Church. This Church is both the Church triumphant, waiting in glory, and the Church militant, presently here struggling for the Gospel. This Church cannot be separated from its visible organizational aspects, nor can it be limited to some invisible conglomeration of the Christians whose borders we cannot know. It is both visible and invisible, and inescapably one. It is one because it is the Body of Christ. Christ is indivisible. The Trinity is indivisible. The Church is one with Christ as Christ is one with the Father. Therefore the Church cannot be divided.
I'm sure I've left out stuff, but there you go.
Now, Megan and Tripp have disagreed with this historic, biblical and patristic understanding of the Church. Megan discards the visible, incarnate, organizational aspect of the Church, making the Church divided. Tripp asserts that the Church is both sinful and holy, because sinful and holy people are in the Church.
But these conceptions of the Church bring immense and irresoluble problems:
1. If the Church is not incarnate, therefore its visible organizational self can be discarded from its invisible spiritual self, then the Church cannot be the Body of Christ, because Christ cannot be divided. And if the Church is not the Body of Christ, then the question that follows: how are we then united both to Christ and to one another? Without the Church, that doesn't seem possible. I would like to know the answer to these questions.
2. If the Church is in any way sinful (in whole or in part) then it cannot be the Body of Christ, because Christ is utterly holy. Without holiness no one will see the Lord, so if the Church is sinful, the Church can have no part of God. Furthermore, if the Church is sinful, she has no Gospel, because the Gospel is about deliverance from sin. But if the Church has not been delivered from sin, then she cannot speak authoritatively about what is holy and what is not. She has no standing to address the moral questions of our day: sexuality, war, the objectification of the defenseless and innocent as sexual tools, poverty, and so forth. If she is sinful, she cannot determine that which is righteous in these matters, and has no voice to speak. Furthermore, she proves the Gospel a lie. If the Church can be both sinful and authoritative, I would like to know how.
From my vantage point, Tripp's and Megan's positions on the Church create more problems than they appear to solve. I would like to see them address these issues.
Posted by Clifton at July 29, 2003 05:21 PM | TrackBack