PDA

View Full Version : Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus or my struggles with church membership


rmwilliamsll
19th March 2004, 06:30 PM
by way of introduction i offer:


-------------------------------------------


So what�s the big deal?

So what if once again I don�t fit? A round peg ought not to try so hard to be square.
It just confirms that sinking feeling that I really don�t belong anywhere.

The problem is that I am not cut out of a whole piece of cloth like most people seem to be. They are liberal or conservative across the board, from the marrow of their bones to the edges of their skin. Me, I�m like frankenstein�s monster, sewn and stitched together from numerous books and endless late night talks with people from all over. Most people take a system and run with it for their entire lives; if they change, it is a complete changeover to a new system. The cost of looking at each piece, to be often in internal limbo, and the high cost of inner inconsistency is too high a one for most of us to invest in. except apparently me. I was too religious for a secular university, too scientific for a seminary, too smart to sharpen lawnmowers, to dumb to stick it out in grad school. And now too intellectual to be a church member. It was one thing to tell me that I didn�t have the outer call to go into the church as a teacher but I�m never heard of the bar lowered to membership before. I must really be upsetting people. Sad thing is I don�t know how or with what.

Some would say just go to a liberal church, with their high tolerance principle they will tolerant a mixed bag conservative far more that a conservative church will tolerant another conservative with liberal leanings. Again back to first principles, all that matters in a church is true biblical preaching. The liberal church is not biblical. Liberals raise reason too high so it reigns over faith, while apparently conservatives can fear reason so it overrides their faith�

about church membership

clarify the issues about the local church.

distinction between the visible and invisible church.
the image of the church universal invisible through the ages, across all human cultures is that of the body of christ, or sometimes as the bride of christ. images first of solidarity and then a lead in for the discussion of the gifts of the spirit to the church.
so why join a local visible church? clearly commanded, forsake not the gathering together as some are apt to do. and the confession's neglect not the means of grace and outside of the church there is no normal salvation. so christians are not generally saved to be lone individuals but saved into a local community. why? what is this fellowship of the saints? why bother? i can read my bible, study just fine by myself, besides i can move a lot faster without having to slow down for other people who haven't spent the time learning the issues? it has to be more than just a way to control behavior, to root out heresy, to enforce community standards. it may certainly involve those things but if limited to these then the church is join another voluntary organization with normal group dynamics etc. but the images of body and bride are much higher, much more evocative than a book club discussion group. something else must be obtainable.

take another direction. as human beings, most of us need to belong, need to be part of something bigger than ourselves. certainly this need is highjacked by evil groups with their own agendas to remake human nature and to reshape the world with their organization's power. i expect more from the church then this however. i also recognize that shared goals, shared work make for lighter loads, more joyous working conditions, and getting much more accomplished.

so maybe this is the entry point for the discussion of the gifts given to the local church in order to accomplish it's task. the church has a job, a mission to do, and the local church is the immediate context for the doing of this work.
so that the image of the body is one of unity in diversity, one of purposefulness of an organization amidst the multiplicity of individual goals. so that would go a long ways to explaining why under normal circumstances christians are calling into a local body. because the exercise of various gifts feed off one another, no one is complete individually but all together have an adequate talent pool. interesting idea. one size really does fit all.


I am conscious of being two different kinds of things, hooked and tied together. Mind/soul/spirit and body. Something physical and something else, the body seems clear enough, it is the mind/soul/spirit that gives me the most difficulty. I am somehow conscious of looking outward from myself, through my eyes; the thing inside (behind those eyes, inside that looks out) appears to consist of two distinctly different types of consciousness. I call them intellect/reason/mind versus emotion/feelings. I do not know where the words come from that I think, I do not know where the anger I far too often express comes from. I am only conscious of images that give this dichotomy body. The most common image I use is of a stormy sea, with the waves breaking high into the air. My emotions are the sea, my intellect the air above it, I am suspended just above the water, often the sea engulfs me and I am filled full of emotion, but most of the time I am in the intellectual sphere, in the air, I can see the water, often feel it but am anchored in the air. I know both parts: emotion and intellect together are me, my mind. But I am also conscious of the power of that lower part, and choose to live primarily above it, in the relative safety of a more intellectual life.

Reason/intellect is the tool we are/have to do this controlling. The bridling of passion, the channeling, the sublimation, of emotion is part of the job for reason. Its other purpose is planning, forecasting the future and providing for it. I prefer to live in my world dominated by books, by reason, by intellectual discourse. I don�t like music; don�t understand art, suspicious of passions of all types but the driving passions to put it all together, to understand, to grok it all. Just a preference based on my perception of myself as an emotional being liable to get in trouble without reason�s careful continuous control.


So given these image of self, what is saving faith and the roles of intellect versus emotion?


Saving faith is not mere intellectual assent, but a wholehearted trust in God. You say you know Jesus is the Son of God; you do well, for even the daemons know his name and tremble. So ask an easier question first, how do I know I love my wife and my kids? Is love just this mushy feeling that I want to be with her? This general feeling that somehow I would rather have the kids around to watch them investigate the world? To prefer their company to that of another? If we introspect the answer, if we look inside for what is love, we are misdirecting the question. We need to look outwardly, at what our actions are, for they betray our real feelings, the real us. We are too easily deceived by our inner nature. Deceiving our actions is much harder for they take so much effort over a long sustained time. What we really believe, what we really care for will come out in the long run as a desire to see the object of affection taken care of. I know I love my wife, not because I am faithful to her, but because in the long run, day after day I am concerned with her welfare, I care about her. The faithfulness is a secondary effect that I would not wish to hurt her with unfaithfulness. Like pretty is pretty does, love is seen as outward appearance of consistency with that love. I do the love I feel.


I believe the American church is infected with a disease that can only be called easy believism. Some how the church has come to believe in a magical incantation of words that bind salvation to us. The appeal of this easy believism is to the emotions. To get people into heaven we cast an appeal to their hearts to utter the currently in vogue mantra to open the door of heaven. I don�t believe it. I understand that the power of sin is throughout our beings. I don�t believe that my intellect is any less tainted by sin than my emotional matrix, but I have tools in the reason/intellectual sphere to control sin�s effects. My emotions do not seem to have a set of controlling tools, they just are, they just bubble up. I can modify them when I can see them, but I bet it is the emotions that I am unaware of, that work under conscious level that are the most important, as well as the most potentially damaging. As a result of this thinking I base my appeal of scriptures, of God�s word primarily to the intellect.


But that doesn�t answer the question of how I know my faith is truly saving faith and not mere intellectual assent? Because of the outward way I work out my salvation with fear and trembling. My feelings of love and trust in God cause me to desire to please Him. I asked to join the church for one reason: outside of the church there is no ordinary means of salvation, neglect not the means of salvation. I intellectually know the confessions points but until I act upon them, until I do the things that demonstrate the inner man, I myself do not know what I really believe. I am not by nature very friendly, I deeply dislike hugging, and I am uncomfortable with any conversation that doesn�t begin with a quote from my latest reading. I do not desire church membership to be around people, I really am uncomfortable most of the time in company, but God said neglect not the means of grace�Hey gang, do what you�ve been told to do. If you believe then the behavior will be modified to fit what you believe.


Trust in God as revealed in Jesus His messiah, begins for me in intellectual exploration of what the two books of God: scripture and nature reveal to us about God. But it doesn�t end there; it extends downward into that vast sea of emotion, into that cauldron of lava that we call our emotional selves. It anchors itself into changed emotions that are not natural to us, emotions to love, to trust, and to rely upon God not just for provision of our physical bodies but also for hope that He will continue to fix the problems that are us. That He will show me where my ideas are wrong, and cause the motivation to explore, to investigate, to love the world He has put me into. This is not because I uttered some magical words to invite Him into my life, it is solely because He changed a heart of stone into a heart of flesh, something inside loves Him and desires to please Him. Just as I know I love my wife because I try to harness and control the anger that I express towards her, tells me that I am unsatisfied with me because she suffers. I change me to conform to her expectations. Just as I change my reasoning, that most precious to me, to conform to what I believe the scriptures teach, because I love Him I try to keep His commandments.


So how do I as an arid, overly read, pretentious, hope to be intellectual know I have a saving faith? By works, I do the things that I know are consistent with God�s expectations of me, not because they will save me, but because of the gratitude inside for what He gave me. First, life itself, second hope of life to come like Jesus arose from the grave, but mostly the hope that He will work within me to do His good pleasure to recreate me as a pleasing creature in His sight. It is the long-term desire to love God that betrays the inner man as saved, I do things to please God; just as I do things that I do not want to do to please my wife. But for me each step starts with buying a new book�


My only criterion for a church is biblical preaching. That is why going to a liberal church is simply out of the question. It would be easier for a liberal church to tolerant a religious fundamentalist/conservative that apparently a conservative with a scientific attitude has in a traditional church. But I find this a poor solution because of their attitude towards the Bible. It is no understatement that the words of the confession, �outside of the church there is no ordinary salvation� echoed in my mind due to the preaching I heard there.

I was encouraged at finding a good church with opportunities to service inside of it. For I am conscious of things I want to share, things inside I want to discuss with like-minded people. I don�t have an outlet for this activity and it is important to me. That is why I volunteered to work on the church�s home page. I would love a need driven learning curve to sharpen my mind, to drive my creativity, to give me an outlet to write.

But your rejection stops all these thoughts. Turns everything inward once again. God knows how important these issues are to me. Why did He reject me? I don�t know. Perhaps it is because my ideas of God are wrong. So I will pursue liberal theology again, reading Bishop Sprong lately helps this wound heal, maybe it is my expectations that God would miraculously intervene, would put me into a place to express myself that might be in error.

My first desire was never to apply again for church membership, even maybe never again to enter a church. To solve the problem of the pain by denying the issues that caused it. I drove for 4 days this week through the northern mountains, with the expressed desire to settle the issue so that I could resume some resemblance of a normal life. For the inability to solve the issue is tearing up my marriage and making me impossible to live with. But like my often stated goal to fast, which never seems to extend more than a couple of days, my initial scream that if you don�t want me than I don�t need you is immature and self defeating. So how do I handle the situation?

I am going to withdraw inside again. Pull in the feelers that were bruised. Study, sell off my books, rebuild my house and build a nice kitchen, which above all else is my wife�s fondest desire. I cannot go back to the church, for the one thing of importance; the preaching is tainted now by my feelings of rejection. They act as a screen between God and me so that I cannot hear the voice of God when I see uncertainty and rejection in the face of His spokesman. They will forever color any relationship possible there. An unfortunate result indeed. It is sad that I have been condemned always to a life of looking into the window from the outside. Never belonging, never wholeheartedly accepted by those we share the deepest things with. But I guess I better get used to it.

i offer this as a way to work through the issues and as a plead for help on the greater issues involved.

LuxPerpetua
19th March 2004, 08:19 PM
In response to your thought-provoking introduction, welcome! :wave:

Lately, I've had many of the same reservations toward the institutional, visual church that you are having. I see so many ways that the church is failing its mission and failing me . . . but I also know that without the church I'd be so much more weakened. The church has given me a few dear-hearted friends when I've needed them most. The church has given me an outlet when I didn't have another choice. The church supports charities that help feed the poor and clothe the naked. I may disagree a LOT with my own individual church but I must remember that it's us, the living stones, that make God's temple. We are holy because He is holy, and the church is built upon Christ and His love. Yeah, I personally think that all churches are infested with varying degrees of heresy, but that doesn't mean that I should forsake it (how can I forsake something that unites me to it in Christ??). Anyway, I've finally come the conclusion that if I don't like what my church is doing, maybe that's God's way of telling me that I should help initiate the change. Just a thought for you. Your Christian walk is a journey AND a destination. :)

countrymousenc
19th March 2004, 09:57 PM
Dear rmwilliamsII,

You really turned yourself inside out to share this with us; thank you for doing so. It seems that we have at least shared one shoe. Like you and Lux, I am currently in search pattern, having left my church, because there simply must be more to this, as you have recognized, than intellectual assent and polite "front porch" relationships. Moreover, this has got to be more about what God wants than what I find palatable.

I hope that you will stick around and interact with us some more. There are all kinds of Christians here - some who are very comfortable and settled already with where they are, and others, like us, who aren't. I can't promise that we will all be understanding, but I can tell you that some of us will be. We've been wounded, too.

One thing I do know, even now, is that Christ will never turn His back on us. In the times when we cannot hold onto Him, He still holds onto us. I've seen Him do it.

Love in Christ,
Dianne

rmwilliamsll
20th March 2004, 06:27 AM
thanks for your kind replies. both my wife and i were finally accepted for church membership about a year after first applying. it's still a big issue for me, as you can see.

one of the problems in the issue is the way the means of grace seems to be tied substantially to the institutional church. the sacraments, the Preaching of the Word, are both institutional. Prayer and individual bible study are not so tied, but only prayer is sometimes, although not always, looked at as a means of grace.

work on answering the question:

what are the 'means of grace.' First, find the origin of the term and what is most frequently included as a means of grace. Some say its just the sacraments, others say it includes the sacraments, the Word of God, and Prayer. Others yet include fellowship. Look at the underlying theology, what is big point?

there seems to be this interesting cascade. First God reveals Himself in the Creation through the divine word-'let there be light'. Then in His relationship with Israel as documentated in the Bible. Here the Word of God becomes 'words of men'. Finally the Logos is revealed as Jesus the Christ. Then in our lives communion is the Word-Jesus becoming manifest before our senses. Likewise we experience the Word of Scripture revealed to our ears and minds via the preaching and teaching of the Church.



issues:
making the invisible-->visible
ordinary means vs. supernatural
ordinances vs sacramentalism

what follows are mostly quotes. i had to remove reference links to fullfill forum rules:
to find original link just google a short phrase inside quotes

We have replaced the sacraments with spiritual exercises of our own making. A survey of virtually any evangelical bookstore finds dozens of books on spirituality, self-denial, church growth, and recovery from various addictions. Some of these contain useful advice; so did some of the medieval handbooks of spiritual direction. But few of them contain the Gospel, and almost none of them make any reference to the use of the Lord’s Supper as a means to Christian growth.2 Even Reformed churches that confess the Supper to be one of the two divinely instituted means of grace (media gratiae) normally serve the Supper only quarterly.
...
Who should participate in the Lord’s Supper and how they should do it were two of the most hotly contested questions of the sixteenth-century Reformation. For both Luther and Calvin, the Supper was of critical importance as a means of grace, as a testimony to Christ’s finished work, and as a seal of His work for us. Furthermore, it was a means by which our union and fellowship with the risen Christ and with one another was strengthened and renewed. As much as the Lutherans and Reformed disagreed about the relations of Christ’s humanity to His deity and thus the nature of His presence in the Supper they agreed on one very important truth—in the Supper the living, Triune God meets His people and nourishes them. The question was not whether, but how.
...
The modernist theology provoked a crisis and a reaction. Since we could no longer be certain of God’s existence and care for us by the old-fashioned Protestant ways (preaching of the Word and the use of the sacraments), we abandoned them for more direct and immediate means of knowing and experiencing God. This flight to the immediate encounter with God is pietism or mysticism. Pietism is not to be confused with piety. The latter is that grateful devotion to God, His Word, and His people that is at the heart of Christianity. Pietism believes that what is truly important about Christianity is one’s personal experience of Jesus; it is a retreat into the subjective experience of God apart from any concrete, historical factuality. Though pietism is usually said to have begun with Philipp Jakob Spener (1635-1705), its roots were much deeper in the history of Christianity. World flight and the interior turn were the stuff of early medieval asceticism. Withdrawal from the world was a major theme among both Greek and Latin writers in the early church. Augustine (354-430), Tertullian (ca. 160-225), Jerome (ca. 342-420) in the West, as well as Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215) and Origen (ca. 185–ca. 254) in the Greek-speaking church, saw world flight as a means to spiritual improvement.
...
Despite its internal differences, the modern evangelical movement is united in its quest for a higher and purer direct experience of the Christ of faith. It is not, however engaged in a more profound search for a more biblical understanding of God’s communion with His people through the signs and seals of the covenant.

REPENTANCE AND RESTORATION TO THE MEANS OF GRACE

American evangelicalism is a pietist, experiential religion that is too busy with cell-group meetings to be troubled with the Lord’s Supper At the same time, we have functionally excommunicated ourselves and, to borrow Calvin’s language, robbed ourselves of Christ’s benefits.6 The remedy for the pietist transformation of sixteenth-century Protestant evangelical religion into a religion of private, personal experience is to repent of our unbelief that God does not or cannot use created means to strengthen or edify us as His people. Here is one of the central differences between the religion of the Protestants and pietist-mysticism: Protestantism believes in the use of divinely ordained means. It also seeks to recapture those divinely ordered gospel instruments.


I. In order to understand the nature of the means of grace, it will be well to consider the general question first: what are means? And then we reply that means are intermediate agencies through which certain definite ends are attained, certain effects are accomplished. Narrowing down our inquiry to those means which God employs with respect to man, we may define them as created things adapted by God and employed by Him to have certain effects on the existence and life of man. They are agencies through which God works constantly, that is, He always works through them in the same manner, He always produces the same effect by them and He never produces that effect without them, the means and the effect produced through them are by God inseparably united. Thus it is in the natural sphere of life.
...
What, then, are means of grace? They are, first of all, created things, things that belong to our world, to the world in which we live, with which we have contact. They, therefore, are adapted to us, they touch us and are able to influence us. We can hear them. We can see them. We can touch them. We can understand them, intellectually apprehend them. We can use them, eat them, drink them. Such, indeed, is the preaching of the Word; and such are the sacraments. The preaching of the Word means that Christ and salvation, which in themselves belong to another world than ours, to the spiritual, heavenly world, now are proclaimed to us in our language, in words we can hear and understand. The water in baptism can touch us, cleanse us physically; the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper we can see, touch, taste, eat and drink. These means are, therefore, created things, taken from the world in which we live and with which we stand in contact.



It is, therefore, astonishing that so many who go by the name "Reformed" in our day seem to deny, at least in the practical treatment of these Sacraments, the efficacy of these means of grace. As I have attempted to highlight in In The Face of God, the gnosticism (spirit against matter emphasis) of our age seems to pervade evangelical thinking and this has not been without its effect in our own churches. The hidden assumption appears to be that God works immediately and directly, without means, in bringing us to faith and keeping us there. Spirit is set against matter; in this case, the material elements of human preaching, water, bread and wine. The Anabaptistic, pietistic, and then revivalistic strains of evangelicalism eventually triumphed over the Reformation's evangelical stance and to the extent that Reformed churches today follow these general evangelical trends, they lose their Reformed identity.
...
We hear quasi-gnostic sentiments even in Reformed circles these days, such as the "real baptism" that is spiritual, as opposed to "merely being sprinkled with water," or the "real communion" with Christ in moments of private devotion. How can we truly affirm the union of earthly and heavenly realities in the Incarnation? Or how can we regard the Word of God as a means of salvation if it is but ink and paper or human speech? A subtle Docetism (the ancient gnostic heresy that denied Christ's true humanity) lurks behind our reticence to see these common earthly elements as signs that are linked to the things they signify. Surely the Sacraments can remind us of grace, help us to appreciate grace, and exhort us to walk in grace, but do they actually give us the grace promised in the Gospel?



It is because we have become practically anti-supernatural and simultaneously super-spiritual in our theology, so that we are, on the one hand, bored with God’s ordinary means of grace (the sacraments) and on the other hand have stopped believing that God can and does use those means to accomplish His purposes.
...
Unlike much popular evangelical piety of our time, Calvin did not juxtapose the use of means in the Christian life with direct, unmediated access to God. In Calvin’s day, as in ours, “many” were persuaded out of “pride or loathing or envy” that they could grow spiritually by “privately reading and meditating” on Scripture and thus did not need the ordained means of grace.
----
How can the Reformed position be distinguished from Rome, then? For the Reformed, the Sacraments are objective means of grace, but not of infused grace. It is the promise of the Gospel, identical to the proclaimed Word, that is confirmed by the use of the Sacraments. Just as the Gospel proclaimed retains its nature and efficacy whether we believe or not, we do not make the Sacraments effective by our faith, preparation, works, or any other activity. And yet, we must receive Christ in them if we are to profit from them



Try to look at the issue from God's perspective: 1-the issue of mediated, using the creation to communicate with human beings 2-the idea of efficency without the means becoming magical, that is God personally 'monitors' the means of grace, He doesn't simply fill a channel with 'grace' 3-the sacraments, preaching of the word are church mediated as well as mediated through physical things 4-is this simply an issue of accomodation? that is God must accomodate Himself to our frailities?


Try to look at the issue from our viewpoint: 2-direct assess to God but mediated, our physical nature is important, but our spirit nature is deeply involved, for it is only this spiritual nature that 'sees' God behind/beneath the physical things used 2-the idea of neglecting so great a salvation, or how can we expect God to talk to us directly, immediately, without first availing ourselves of His ordinated ends? 3-to obey the commands, puts ourselves in a position to receive the 'means of grace', demonstrates our willingness to accept what God has ordinated as the way. first step of obedience and trust.


In reality, we are an individualistic and self-assured lot. We believe that the Christian life consists chiefly in finding out what needs to be done, and doing it. Inveterate Pelagians by birth, we do our best to climb the spiritual rungs into God's hidden presence, but he has plainly warned us against this strategy. For he has come near to us, through the Incarnate Word, the written, and especially, preached Word, and the visible Word (i.e., the Sacraments)
...
How can we truly affirm the union of earthly and heavenly realities in the Incarnation? Or how can we regard the Word of God as a means of salvation if it is but ink and paper or human speech? A subtle Docetism (the ancient gnostic heresy that denied Christ's true humanity) lurks behind our reticence to see these common earthly elements as signs that are linked to the things they signify. Surely the Sacraments can remind us of grace, help us to appreciate grace, and exhort us to walk in grace, but do they actually give us the grace promised in the Gospel?
...
Especially important in the Augustinian tradition was the relation between "sign" and "thing signified." Analogous to the relation between Christ's human and divine natures united in one person, the earthly signs of water, bread and wine are united with the things signified: regeneration, forgiveness, and adoption. This "sacramental relation" is central to the Reformed understanding of these passages. It helps us to avoid either a ritualism that places the efficacy in the signs themselves and a spiritualism or rationalism that deprives the signs of their efficacy. So when we read that Baptism is "the remission of sins," we embrace neither baptismal regeneration nor spiritualization. The sign is not the thing signified, but is so united by God's Word and Spirit that the waters of Baptism can be said to be the washing of regeneration and the bread and wine can be said to be the body and blood of Christ. To say that Christ is not in the water, bread and wine is not to say that he is not in the Baptism and the Supper, since both Sacraments consist of signs and things signified
...
When we say that someone was converted by hearing a sermon, we are not attributing saving efficacy to language, or ink and paper in their own right. Rather, we are claiming (whether we realize it or not) that God has graciously taken up these human things and, by uniting them to the heavenly treasures, has made them effective himself.
...
At the heart of the Reformed doctrine, shared also with the ancient (especially Greek) churches, is the eschatological parallelism between heaven and earth:
...
Through these means of grace, says the biblical writer, especially "the good word of God," the members of the visible Church have actually tasted the powers of the age to come. This is the "already" aspect of the kingdom. And yet, it is the age to come in all its fullness when Christ returns physically in glory. "For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face" (1 Cor. 13:12). The Reformed view wants to avoid the tendency to deny the future of this face-to-face encounter, but it also insists that we do see in a mirror, however dimly. That mirror or looking glass in which we see our Redeemer is Word and Sacrament

ByzantineDixie
20th March 2004, 08:56 AM
You are obviously someone of great intellect...it is quite possible I have completely missed your point...but I would like to throw out something for consideration. If I am out in left field...just correct me.

You seem to be struggling with the idea of why you really need to participate in a congregation and have listed arguments pro and con.

Much of your discussion focuses on what you get or do not get out of such participation and the related scriptural and doctrinal support. Let me turn the tables a bit. Sometimes God has us in a congregation not because of what we get out of it but what He would have us give to it! It isn't always about us. This was a very tough lesson I had to learn but God is a GREAT teacher! :D

My husband is die-hard Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. As the leader of our family, and in particular the spiritual leader, I must follow his direction as long as I am not being improperly instructed or poorly nutured in the faith. When we first moved there was only one LCMS church within 45 minutes of our home...so we didn't spend a lot of time church shopping. It was so awful...the church was like a country club and people pulled God out of the box every Sunday like they did their Sunday hats. I cried daily and BEGGED God to remove us from this situation. And the more I prayed the more I was made to understand he had us in the congregation for a purpose. I knew I had to be there even if it was not what I wanted. Here we are, almost 5 years later and you wouldn't even recognize this congregation. We are God worshipers, prayer warriors, servants for the sake of the Lord--every day, not just on Sunday. God has even sent miracles to our congegation. The growth spurt God put us through has been phenomenal...and yes, I do think that God used my husband and I in part of His plan to grow up His people. What did we do? Offered a kind word or two, taught a bible study, pitched in when someone needed help, prayed and prayed and prayed... Through the power of His Holy Spirit, God enables us to serve His people and do His work...and when God works...plan to be awestruck.

In His Grace and with His Love,

Rose

countrymousenc
20th March 2004, 10:27 AM
rm,

I'll try to address a few points this morning, but that's the best I can do for a few days. I looked at your website, and you are obviously well-read, so I doubt that I can suggest anything you haven't already covered. The best I can do is offer a little bit of my journey. All quotes will be from your opening post.

one of the problems in the issue is the way the means of grace seems to be tied substantially to the institutional church. the sacraments, the Preaching of the Word, are both institutional. Prayer and individual bible study are not so tied, but only prayer is sometimes, although not always, looked at as a means of grace.

work on answering the question:

what are the 'means of grace.' First, find the origin of the term and what is most frequently included as a means of grace. Some say its just the sacraments, others say it includes the sacraments, the Word of God, and Prayer. Others yet include fellowship. Look at the underlying theology, what is big point?

I can't hope to give you a full, satisfying answer to this - that would be, for me, a fool's errand. I have experienced the intense frustration of being dissatisfied with institutional churches, but along the way, I discovered that there is neither pleasure nor sanity in trying to be a spiritual hermit, "just me & Jesus." God didn't make us to live that way, and, after this bodily life, we are going to have a whole lot of other people to get along with in Heaven/Paradise. Here and now is where we start learning to do that.

This discovery taught me something else. Theologically and hermeneutically, it can't be "just me and Jesus" either. I am not going to find a church here on earth that fits my own current individual picture of the Truth. That means that I am going to have to be willing to consider the idea that I don't know as much as I'd like to think, and that I have to find the church that has the best record of being stable and trustworthy. I'm not willing to continue jumping out and swimming to another lifeboat every few years.

So, why the institution, and why the sacraments? I can't answer on behalf of the One Who ordained them, but I am confident of this much - it's because we have bodies, and He has provided for us visible, auditory, and tangible means of receiving His grace. We need these things, but it takes some humility to admit it. We need things to which we can point, especially at first, and say, "This is how I know." Following that, we know, as you said in your first post, because our behavior changes. Ultimately, we're aiming for being in communion with God with every breath we take, being aware of His presence and praying continually as everything we do, say, and think becomes an offering to Him. That isn't easy, but it's really all that's worthwhile. And it doesn't happen in a vacuum.

We have replaced the sacraments with spiritual exercises of our own making.

...
It is because we have become practically anti-supernatural and simultaneously super-spiritual in our theology, so that we are, on the one hand, bored with God’s ordinary means of grace (the sacraments) and on the other hand have stopped believing that God can and does use those means to accomplish His purposes.
...
Unlike much popular evangelical piety of our time, Calvin did not juxtapose the use of means in the Christian life with direct, unmediated access to God. In Calvin’s day, as in ours, “many” were persuaded out of “pride or loathing or envy” that they could grow spiritually by “privately reading and meditating” on Scripture and thus did not need the ordained means of grace.

----

How can the Reformed position be distinguished from Rome, then? For the Reformed, the Sacraments are objective means of grace, but not of infused grace. It is the promise of the Gospel, identical to the proclaimed Word, that is confirmed by the use of the Sacraments. Just as the Gospel proclaimed retains its nature and efficacy whether we believe or not, we do not make the Sacraments effective by our faith, preparation, works, or any other activity. And yet, we must receive Christ in them if we are to profit from them


It seems that you and I are dissatisfied for at least one of the same reasons!


In reality, we are an individualistic and self-assured lot. We believe that the Christian life consists chiefly in finding out what needs to be done, and doing it. Inveterate Pelagians by birth, we do our best to climb the spiritual rungs into God's hidden presence, but he has plainly warned us against this strategy. For he has come near to us, through the Incarnate Word, the written, and especially, preached Word, and the visible Word (i.e., the Sacraments)

Again, we agree. In reading the rest of your post, fully, I see that you've answered your own questions, so there was little need for me to post an answer to them for your benefit. Perhaps, by God's grace, it will benefit someone, though, so I'll leave this as it is.