Recovering the First Reformation - Toward a Proto-Protestant Narrative of Church History (XVIII)
While our Biblicist theology is necessarily high and has high
regard for revealed mysteries and supernatural efficacious elements and means –
our ecclesiology is about as low as it gets – but this in no way implies
casualness or irreverence.
On the contrary, our understanding of the Church and the
church meeting demands sobriety, reverence, awe and all humility. Indeed our
meetings are a kind of Jacob's Ladder, a bridge between the eternal domain of
heaven, the Divine Council and the temporal realms, expressing and depicting (by
means of sacred transcendent tokens) our Union with Christ and as such we
proclaim His coming to a world that is perishing. It is about as sober an event
as can be imagined and yet for those in the Spirit it is also an occasion of
fellowship and joy. We don't need stage props and architectural splendour to
experience this transcendence – in fact they can only mislead. And the levity
which reigns in Evangelical circles is not only sacrilege but it exposes their
ignorance regarding what the Church meeting is, the sobriety demanded by our
position in this world, and the nature of the God we serve.
The institutionalisation of the Church must be rejected along
with any attempts to create extra-Scriptural governing bureaucracies. Believing
Scripture to be sufficient, we follow only God-given directives in terms of our
meetings and polity which results in (by many standards and sensibilities) a
very simple even bare-bones type of service and organisation. The only things
required by those assembling are the Word of God, prayer, bread, wine, and
water – and perhaps song which is in reality another type or mode of prayer.
The Spirit works through these means and there's no reason to expect He works
through any others.
Musical instrumentation, buildings and many of things people
associate with the 'normal' Church experience are without warrant and more
often than not become traps and harmful snares. While it's not inherently
problematic to have a designated building to meet in, if it takes on a life of
its own and becomes essentially associated with the concept of the Church then
it risks not only becoming a distraction but a form of idolatry. More often
than not it represents a Judaizing tendency – 'the house of God', a kind of
Temple (sometimes with altar) for the New Testament era – this also being
reflected in the so-called (but misnamed) 'sacred' architecture. This
necessarily detracts from the New Testament teaching and provides an
unwarranted substitute that associates the Church with buildings and institutions
rather than the congregation and what it proclaims. Many even acknowledge this
but few have thought deeply about it and even fewer are willing to challenge
the present order and follow through on it by taking action to the contrary.*
Many of the heirs of the Magisterial Reformation are governed
by Middle Class sympathies and intuitions and want to appear respectable as an
institutional component of society. This grants not only respect but standing
and a degree of credibility. This plays no small part in the emphasis on buildings
along with proper grounds and the like.
Groups meeting in homes or in commercial (or even industrial)
rented spaces (let alone in a true underground-clandestine venue) are viewed as
not only dubious but it makes the group appear sectarian or cult-like.
Even antithesis-emphasizing men like Paul Washer have fallen
for this way of thinking and are quick to encourage their mission works to
procure and utilise a building in order to have some standing in society, be
deemed respectable, and not be viewed as a 'sect'.
As a body that seeks to be not only counter-cultural but
opposed to the mammon-driven sensibilities of traditional institutional
ecclesiologies, we should be happy to be identified as fools and cult-like
oddities that are in opposition – even to church bodies that claim to be
conservative. Established designated buildings are for the most part an
unfortunate distraction and a terrible waste of money. And worse, they tend to
perpetuate congregations that would have naturally folded otherwise.
And we needn't fear the 'sect' label. Many sects have
flourished on the basis of their message alone. Have they 'flourished' in terms
of society and politics? No, but if the New Testament is our guide, that's not
our concern.
Though we might be reckoned a sect, we have no desire to be
associated with an institution or building. According to the Scriptures we are
to be known by our fruit and by our love. Those who stumble over a lack of
steeple or stained glass have deeper problems.
Meeting in homes, or condemned buildings and underpasses (as
seen for example in the Chinese church) would be looked upon with horror by
many in the West and this is due to the very flawed idea that middle class
comfort should be associated with the church meeting. Such attitudes and
expectations are foreign to both the New Testament and much of Church history.
This very issue has arisen lately with the Covid pandemic.
Historically when plagues and sickness came rolling through – and indeed they
did on a far more frequent basis, one reads of congregations meeting outside
and spread apart. They may not have understood germ theory but they figured out
that proximity led to contagion. They would meet outside in the elements. One
assumes meetings were delayed if it was raining or snowing but generally
speaking people were more than willing to endure discomfort in order to meet.
It was that important to them.
Those familiar with the history and the modern history of the
underground church are familiar with such stories, of people missing a night's
sleep in order to meet – arriving and leaving in staggered fashion as to not
call attention by a swarm of people headed toward (or away from) a house, barn,
warehouse, or other locale.
But right now we find churches quick to capitulate to
government dictates because of their tax and business status. Meeting apart
from their public building is unthinkable. Meeting outside (out of an abundance
of caution and for love of neighbour) is beyond the pale. The discomfort, the
seeming lack of dignity, the 'crudeness' of a meeting without flowers,
microphones, a coat closet and the like – just wouldn't meet their expectations
of what church is like or what they would deem to be respectable. Perish the
day anyone ever thought the Church's role in the world was to be respectable,
esteemed, or a place of cozy comfort and sentimentality – let alone a building
expressing gilded might and power.**
This is why in some respects I do emphasize the
Neo-Waldensian aspect to this question. Until they fell under the influence of
the Magisterial Reformation they did not have buildings. They lived as
dissidents. They lived an underground life akin to the first 280-odd years of
the Church's existence. And they did not desire otherwise. They simply wanted
to be left alone but their convictions brought them into conflict with the
Sacral order and they lived as strangers and pilgrims in medieval society –
though romanticised today, the towering edifices, the castles and cathedrals
represented the Beast-Antichrist system which persecuted them.
Christians today talk of the coming marginalisation and
persecution. If the Church had been faithful we would have already been
experiencing these things – even decades ago. Faithful living now will bring
hardship. Faithful living now means a life of deliberate non-conformity. The
Biblicist theology being called for results in a radically different life
ethic. The answer is not to make rules for living and employment but study and
reflection will lead to the realisation that the evils of our system mean that
mainstream life is closed to us as are many countless doors. Yea, the very
mindset and values which undergird mainstream life make it alien to us,
distasteful, and in many cases simply beyond the pale.
The advocates of so-called Christian Worldview have largely
deceived themselves, contriving an intellectual and ethical system that
syncretises worldly thought and ethics with Christian ideology – a system that
allows them to set aside New Covenant obligation in order to fulfill a role in
society and achieve cultural goals. In most cases it's actually the polar
opposite of what a Christian worldview actually is and calls for. In attempting
to eradicate the Biblical sacred-secular divide they have simply sanctified the
secular – and standing solidly in the tradition of Constantinianism, they have
opened the gates and allowed the world to run riot within the Church. It's truly
a case of the blind leading the blind.
In opposition to their acculturated Establishment-minded
Christianity, we live like revolutionaries – not against the state per se but
rather we are ecclesiastical or spiritual revolutionaries. In terms of the
state we live as non-conformists, strangers, pilgrims or in today's vocabulary
– almost like refugees. We needn't make an absolute retreat from society – even
the Amish haven't managed that. We need to be in the world (suffering and
bearing witness) but that does not mean we compromise merely to have our foot
in the door of every social sector. Many of these sectors are necessary to fallen
society but they have nothing to do with us and we shouldn't entangle ourselves
therein – as the apostle instructed Timothy.
But in terms of the governing ecclesiastical frameworks – we
are definite revolutionaries. And if these factions gain political power then
our dissent does take on something of a political edge – though we do not seek
power ourselves. We reject the mainstream paradigms and their narratives and
yes, we seek to 'steal their sheep' as it were. We would love to see their
congregations and denominations implode and collapse and we will not weep if
they fall silent and their Babel-like steeples crumble and fall. For in the
end, in many cases they do far more harm to the cause of Christ than good. Crossing
sea and land to make proselytes they all too often make them the children of
hell. They shut more people out of the Kingdom than they bring in. They do not
foster reformation – they hinder it.
And we must beware the leaders of these groups as they do
seek political power and if given the chance would not hesitate to use it
against us. There's nothing they fear more than dissidents, Bible-in-hand
exposing them and condemning them. History proves this over and over again and
even in my own life I've tangled with clerics that have used their limited
influence to make trouble for me – even in the secular sphere. This is why I
write with a very slight veil of anonymity. This is coupled with the fact that
I have no desire to paste my name and picture all over everything I produce as
some are wont to do – some even emblazoning their own names in large letters on
their study Bibles! I think that reveals a great deal about who they are and
what motivates them.
There is more to be said, more to consider. I doubt anyone is
going to catch the full vision of what's being proposed here, this almost-call
to Neo-Waldensianism. And yet if things progress in our society and culture the
real meaning of that many prove easy enough to understand. In the meantime
expect the mainstream Church (and especially the mainstream conservative
churches) to despise you, to even look down upon you as immoral if you refuse
to live up to their cultural and lifestyle standards. Yes, they will hate and
despise you if you're poor and if you reject their values. There's no need to
mince words on this point. The shame belongs to them and that which they glory
in.
In the meantime it is my hope that some will grasp at least
portions of what is being said, that these essays will stir reflection and
perhaps even action. The hour is late and the enemy has established his banners
in the holy place, he roars in our midst, defiling all the meeting places in
the land. The people perish for lack of knowledge and worship idols or at best
they are deceived – worshipping Jehovah at the shrine of Bethel as it were.
O Lord send Your Spirit and revive the Holy Church, the Bride
of the Risen Christ! Amen.
There is much more to be said and God willing this is only
the beginning.
----
*In fact sacred architecture has experienced a renaissance in
conservative circles – a kind of reaction to the movie theatre/shopping mall
approach of Evangelicalism and the mega-church fad. Both are in error albeit
for different reasons. Both involve props and performance. The mega-church
leader standing up front in sandals, shorts, and a Hawaiian shirt (with coffee
in hand) is engaged in just as much a thought-out and deliberate
production/performance as is the man in vestments standing alongside candles.
Both are in error. The one is rooted in history and contains a type of
reverence. The other is just cheap and obscene – an attempt to show that
Christianity is hip and resonates with the 21st century suburbia.
But just because the one style is wrong does not mean that we
need to pendulum swing over to high church traditionalism. Both represent
acculturation. In terms of Scripture they're more or less the same, they simply
are manifestations of different cultural periods assimilating with the Church.
The one is a leftover, the other is cutting edge. I can begrudgingly stomach
the high church option but that doesn't really make it better.
** Some might point to car park/parking lot services with a highly localised transmitter used to bring the message in via the car radio. It's not something I'm keen on but I suppose it could be an option. Sadly I've also seen it abused with congregants 'honking' approval with their car horns and the like. It doesn't take much for such things to degenerate especially when the ecclesiology flowing from the pulpit is already so off base.