The Visible Church

Lesslie Newbigin was a great man and an under-rated theologian. This fall I have been taking a course called "Readings in the theology of Lesslie Newbigin." In order to understand his theology, however, we must also understand his life. Newbigin was a missionary, an ecumenisist, a theologian, a bishop, a preacher, and a pastor. Most of his career was spent in India working for the Church of Southern India, a church which he helped bring together out of the missionary efforts of the Church of Scotland, the Presbyterian Church, the Church of England, and the British Methodist church. He served in several capacities there as well as in Britian. I was first introduced to Bishop Newbigin in Dr. David VanHeemst's "Post Modern Political Theory" course. In it we read The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society. If I am completely honest, I do not remember exactly what that book was about, but I think it dealt with culture and its influence upon conceptions of truth. It may have also discussed how Christians do not need to accept foreign epistemologies. Regardless, I do remember loving the book. (I get confused because of the other material I had been reading for DVH and for my Dad. Some stuff by Marshall and Clapp sounds familiar. In addition I think my own engagement with theology had brought me to similar conclusions. Newbigin provided language for thoughts that I already possessed.)

In the present course we have read his Sin and Salvation, The Good Shepherd, and Signs Amid the Rubble. I highly recommend these books to anyone, and I believe every pastor should own The Good Shepherd (even if it is out of print! )

This week our reading came from The Household of God. It deals with Newbigin's ecclesiology. I find this to be incredibly exciting because I love ecclesiology, I love the church. (see my facebook note titled "I love you Belleville first")  After a long discussion about the nature of faith and its relation to the church, newbigin begins to explain his conception of church. He does this through critique of the protestant idea that individuals can come to God apart from the church. Newbigin argues that the Church is defined as whereever the Word is preached and the sacraments recieved. this means, however, that the Church comes through people. He then argues against the protestant conception of a visible and invisible church. He, perhaps unfairly, indicts luther for using this unscriptural language in Luther's attempts to reform the church. Since Luther emphasized the "invisible" nature of the church, the church has lost the idea of visible unity.

This leads Newbigin to ask the question, "How has it come about that the vast majority of Protestant Christians are content to see the Church of Jesus Christ split up into hundreds of separate sects, feel no sense of shame about such a situation, and sometimes even glory in it and claim the support of the New Testament for it?"

His question is an indictment against all protestants who are content with the denominational divide. Are we cotent with it? To go a step further, do we support greater division in the church? Do we see the demise of denominations to be a good thing? (that is a fun question to answer!)

The more I read of Newbigin, the more embarassed I become about my past thoughts concerning my denomination, but perhaps this is not just a trend of my denomination. I have noticed a trend within the Church of the Nazarene to assert its distinctive theology, an attempt to legitimatize the distinction between Nazarenes, Wesleyans, and Methodists. I cannot help but think this is the exact opposite of what we, as Christians, ought to be doing. This might be true of other denominations, but I feel as though in recent years many churches have been diggin in. They pull out their government issued shovels and dig their foxholes around a certain issue or couple of issues coming out to blast certain enemies. It seems as though thousands of feet have dug themselves in the ground getting ready to take a huge blow. This cannot be correct.
If there is One God and one baptism... shouldn't there be one Church?

Part of me would like to go on a rant against contemporary hyper denominationalism that is faddishly known as "Non denominationalism," but I won't. Instead I leave with a question. How or why are some (perhaps many) Christians content to see the bride of Christ, to see Christ's body split up into thousands of pieces? If God can do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine by the power that is at work within us, then why is unity of the visible church seen as an imposibility? If Christ came to reconcile all things, then why are Christians not incredibly disturbed at the lack of reconciliation within Christ's own body?