Note: This is part two of a three part series.
A few
weeks ago, I led a leadership development time with the River
Leadership Team. We discussed the differences between the Roman
Catholic, the Protestant, and what-ever the heck we are (emerging).
Here is a breakdown of some of our comparisons.
What is the nature of the Church?
Roman- Catholicism: church=culture
Protestantism: church vs culture
Emerging: church in culture
Summary: Traditional "RCism" has the church dictating the culture of any given society. While this has stepped back a little since Vatican II, it is still their essential answer to the Nature of the Church.
 Protestant
churches seem to define themselves by where they are on the accepting/
rejecting current culture paradigm. For many protestant churches, a
sense of holiness is derived through the rejection of societal norms. "We do not own a TV because it is a tool of the Devil."
The other side of protestantism is the churches that embrace culture
and begin to mimic it. Both views can be defined by 'church vs
culture'. Just as a note, protestant churches can also be defined by
how closely they resemble, or how strongly they reject, the Roman
Catholic church.
On the emerging front, the church is viewed as in the
culture. This really is a missional attitude borrowed from the foreign
mission field. The church is unique, and perfectly suited to care for
the community in which God has placed it.
What is the authority in the life of the Christian? In the Church?
RC: Bible + Tradition + Papal Decree
Protestantism: In theory: Bible. In Practice: Bible + denominational or congregational tradition.
Emerging: Bible. Practice established by local congregation.
Summary:
I'm not naive enough to think that the emerging church is the only
group to have Biblical practice figured out. I am sure there are some
emerging churches out there with other spiritual authorities other than
the Bible. Maybe some emerging churches would answer the question,
"Bible + Brian McLaren". At least that's honest.
I have bounced around the protestant church long enough now to realize that while the Bible is held up to be the authoritative
document in the life of the church, often the church's constitution and
by-laws have more say. I have served in churches where the
constitution clearly contradicted the plain teaching of the Bible;
people got cranky when that was pointed out. The RC's are honest about it, anyway, even if I happen to disagree with their approach.
What are the essential practices of the church?
RC: 7 sacraments (Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, Marriage)
Protestantism: 2 ordinances (Communion, Baptism)
Emerging: 3 Ordinances (Communion, Baptism, Social Justice)
Summary: OK, a bit of my theological persuasion is coming through here. Foundationally, I reject the concept of sacramental
ministry because it conveys the idea that God's grace can be
administrated by humans. On the protestant side, the idea of an
ordinance appeals to me. I just think there are not enough ordinances.
We need one more: social justice.
To try to reflect the life and ministry of Jesus without including the
social justice side of what he did is to miss a big chunk of what he
came to do, me thinks. In this area, I seem to lean to an RC
understanding of the term (see Wikipedia article on social justice).
How is one saved?
RC: Faith + Works
Protestantism:
We are saved from something (sin, hell, ourselves). Focus is on
eternity. My salvation is primarily for my benefit.
Emerging: We are saved unto something (mission ). This salvation is lived out in the present. My salvation is primarily for the benefit of others. Faith, then works.
Summary:
I know some people may say that the difference here between protestant
and emerging is just two sides of the same coin. Maybe. But an
attitudinal shift in regards to salvation is not a bad thing.
Especially in evangelicalism (see previous blog entry
), the pendulum has been way over to the "me, myself and I" side for a
long time! A shift back towards a corporate view of things can bring
about a measure of balance.
Some final thoughts:
Five hundred years ago, an earthquake shook the western world. It was
the earthquake of a major shift in worldview. The modern mindset
prevailed out of those tremors. So did the reformation. The church
splintered into a few major schools of thought- RCism, The Anglican school, the Anabaptists, the German or Lutheran school, and the Swiss or Refromed
school. The major effect of all this was that the Bible was put (back)
into the hands of the common person. We are going through another
major worldview earthquake right now-the move from the modern to the
post-modern.
This really is a new reformation. That is why I
see myself as post-protestant. We've come out of the protestant
traditions, yet we are something new. It happened when the reformers
led the church away from Rome's influence. New practices; new
doctrine. And Rome's response was to declare them all heretics, and to
burn a few at the stake. Take time to google the term
'emerging church', and you'll see the same thing now. New practices,
new doctrines, and a whole lot of people talking about the emerging
church as a bunch of heretics; burning them at the stakes of their
blogs and books.
In part three, we'll look at the definition of orthodoxy, and how it affects our practices within the church.
|