Calvin and the Church

In my historical theology class, we were asked the following discussion question(s): 

First, re-read (or read!) the section in McGrath on Calvin and the church (205-6). I'm particularly interested in what you think of Calvin's proposal of the visible and the invisible church and how they relate. For example, in the last paragraph (206), McGrath notes that Calvin stipulated:

"Wherever we see the Word of God preached purely and listened to, and the sacraments administered according to the institution of Christ, we cannot doubt that a church exists."

McGrath interprets Calvin to mean that, it is "thus not the quality of its members, but the presence of the authorized means of grace [that is, the sacraments], which constitutes a true church."

Where does faith fit into this theological construct? How would a typical Baptist (if there is one!) react to that? Or, how would your faith tradition react? Does election totally outweigh faith? How does McGrath's interpretation of Calvin relate to ethics?  Could we participate in the sacraments, receiving grace as it were, and still be unsaved?

My response was (briefly)-

Calvin's views as summarized in the brief passage in the text are a necessary, but not sufficient, description of the church.

I strongly agree with Calvin on the visible and the invisible church concept.  I have no proof (obviously), and my biases make even a close determination impossible, but I'd guess that somewhere between 20% and 50% of the members of my local congregation are unregenerate.  I imagine the numbers are similar in other congregations.  This is clear empirical evidence that Calvin was right about the two 'churches'.  I am not dogmatic about this...it is my impression based on what I know about biblical descriptions of true believers and about the people in my congregation.  I've talked to a number of pastors, and they think along similar lines (at least, as much as they'll open up about this topic).

Think about the opposite of what Calvin says:  If the Word of God is not preached, and the sacraments (or ordinances, if you prefer) are not (rightly) administered, do you have a church?  I don't see how.  And, with McGrath, if the local congregation cannot be a true church unless the quality of it's members is universally high (with regard to righteous living), then I don't think there's such a thing as a true church.

As one of my former pastors once told me, "If you ever find the perfect church, don't join it.  You'll mess it up."  He was right.

I don't think the 'typical' Baptist would respond well to this, as the 'typical' Baptist is strongly Arminian in outlook, and has been corrupted by the misuse of the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers (which, if you ask, they will call, 'the priesthood of the believer').  The typical Baptist is anti-creedal, pro-democratic-control of the church, and more methodistic than a typical Wesleyan (Methodist) in approach to evangelism.

The question, 'Does election totally outweigh faith' is a leading question.  Election is a necessary condition for faith (John 6:44), but we are saved through our faith, not our election (that is logically not clear, but I don't know a better way to say it).

As far as ethics, if we are unsaved, we cannot receive any more than common grace through the sacraments, as I believe 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 makes clear.  In fact, I imagine most (if not all) of us have received the common grace of not dying on the spot when we've taken the Lord's supper in an unworthy manner.  Of course, in many churches today that risk is minimized since many congregations don't observe the Lord's supper more than a couple times a year.  (And in the same vein, some of these churches don't preach the Word either...opting instead for a Joel-Osteen-like best-life-now approach to scripture).  I'll let you draw your own conclusions, based on Calvin's view or not, of whether these are 'true churches'.

I hope was wasn't being unfair to 'typical' Baptists (whatever that may be).  It is accurate according to my experience, at least.

Speaking of historical theology, I recently saw where a new textbook is about to be released.  This book is from Gregg Allison of Southern Seminary in Louisville.  It is a companion volume to Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, with chapters and sections that correspond.  It looks like a great resource, and is on my Amazon wish list.

Wednesday Wisdom: Six Reasons to Love Church History

When I was young, church history was taboo to me.  I grew up in a denomination that claimed (at least locally) exclusivity as the church; it claimed that it was an extension of the first-century church and all other manifestations (i.e., denominations) were false.  (And yes, by extension, all those folks in them were bound for hell.)

So looking at church history was not a good thing to be doing...it raised too many questions.

As I've aged, I've of course looked into these things for myself, and found church history to be both fascinating and frightening at the same time.   But mostly, I've found it to be enlightening.  Hebrews 13:7-10 certainly teaches us that we should look at our past, and for good reasons.

I recently ran across an online article about why we should love studying church history.  In it, the authors (Rick and Susanna, relatives of one of my favorite bloggers, Tim Challies) look at why church history is important.

There are a lot of church history books out there.  Some are very specific to an individual or event, or a period of time.  These are too numerous to mention.  Others are more general, covering long periods of history in a more superficial way.  These are a good place to start.  Some are very academic in nature, and are about as much fun to read as the instructions that came with your most recent 'some assembly required' purchase from China (excuse me, Wal-mart).  Others are written for the non-academic audience, and are much better.  Of these, I recommend Justo Gonzalez's book for both readability and accuracy.  It is two volumes, but CBD has a version with both in one hardcover volume, and the price is very reasonable.

Of the more specific books out there, one I recommend is a compilation of multiple specific events/people.  It is called Turning Points by Mark Noll.  Of course, one of the best places to start with a biography is the classic Here I Stand (Martin Luther) by Roland Bainton.

I should also mention, for those who like audio-format learning, that a semester church history course by a fantastic lecturer, Dr. David Calhoun of Covenant Theological Seminary, is available various places online.  Here is a set of the first half (Ancient and Medieval church history), and here is a set of the second half (Reformation and Modern church history).  You'll need to do a free registration to get them...really, it's free.  These can be downloaded and burned to CD or MP3 player for easy listening.  These lectures are engaging and enjoyable...not at all boring or overly academic, for having come from a seminary course.

Remembering 9/11 With My Kids

My 6th-grade daughter was tasked by a teacher with watching a History Channel special this weekend on the 9/11 attacks. (Thanks to DVR...we had four baseball games today!)

It was a very interesting and well-done show, focusing more on personal relationships between a handful of survivors, but building the story around their day.  I was worried about the appropriateness of the content for an 11-year-old, but there were no problems other than the expected intensity of the fear during the time before the towers fell.

It sure did bring back memories.  Those are not far from the surface, but the images bring them back all the stronger.  I was in my car on the way to work at Missouri Baptist University in St. Louis when I heard a DJ come on and say a plane had hit the WTC.  It didn't seem like a big deal, and they went right back to music.  Then, about 15 minutes later, the second plane hit.  It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what was going on.  I remember spending much of the day with TVs in the classrooms, watching the coverage with the students.  It was one of those never-forget mornings.

The most intense time for me came four days later.  I vividly remember going out early Saturday morning and getting on my lawn tractor to mow my 3-acre lawn.  I was busily mowing away, thinking about the situation, when for some reason I noticed the sky.  I had to stop the tractor.  There were always a dozen or more contrails in the bright Missouri sky, but on that day, there were none.  That moment the reality of what had happened hit me.  I literally turned off the engine of my tractor and had a good cry.  It was both weird and fulfilling at the same time.  But one thing I knew, the world I'd been living in was never going to be the same.  I had all four kids then, and Ryan, my youngest, was just 18 months old.  It made me sad thinking about the innocence they lost that day without really knowing it.

Now, the special on TV made for a great 'teaching moment'.  I was happy to be able to discuss some of the important things about the attacks and the world we live in with the kids.  I'm sure we'll watch it again (since it is on DVR) and there will be more questions to answer.  These questions are a privilege...after all, when they say, 'We will never forget', how do you suppose we'll make that happen if we don't talk about it with our kids?  Especially in this day, when our own president goes around apologizing for our country, it is all the more important to make sure our kids know the ramifications of what 9/11 means, and how they'll need to deal with those ramifications as they grow up.

I hope millions of kids had a good discussion today with their parents and learned a little something about freedom, good and evil, and family.