In the dim distant past I was fortunate enough to study psychology at university. As a result I always have plenty of material on hand to spice up dull dinner party conversation - 'werewolves', dissociative fugue, why that anti-AIDS "Bowling Death" ad was ineffective, etc. I also learned how to decode common mental tics like Deja-vu - that eerie feeling of having been/seen/heard something before. Despite what the psychics may espouse, deja-vu derives from a misfire in your synapses when, on the presentation of a stimulus, your natural 'Recognition -> Emotional Response' process is reversed. Your consciousness then attempts to compensate by giving you the "We've Been Here Before" feeling. Perfectly natural, but in this case it really is your mind playing tricks on you!
I had such a feeling reading through chapter 2 of The Reformed Pastor this week. However, in this case, I could pinpoint exactly where the feeling came from...
Baxter continues his discursus on the oversight of the church by expanding on his key text of Acts 20:28. After instructing his readers that they must begin by taking heed of themselves he then describes how they must take heed of those whom God has given them. It is at this point that the feeling of deja-vu kicks in. It is obvious that Baxter owes a great deal to Bucer in his second chapter. His identification of the different types of 'sheep' to be dealt with follows Bucer almost exactly and his instruction about restoring those who are lost in sin also follow Bucer's pattern. This in itself is not surprising. Though Bucer's work had not appeared in English, the debt that 17th Century Puritanism owed to 16th Century Geneva made it natural that Baxter should turn to the Reformation texts for inspiration.
Baxter, following Bucer, takes pains to outline the seriousness of the work of guarding souls and calling those who have not believed in Christ to put their faith in Him. He views the congregation as the central charge of the pastor, and expresses disdain for those weak leaders who seek a comfortable living or ecclesiastical preferment rather than preaching the Gospel. None are to be neglected, but the lost are to be sought, the injured healed, the weak strengthened, etc. Those who are interested in some of the niceties would do well to read my previous posts on Bucer - the effect would be the same.
I then began asking myself, since Bucer and Baxter appear to be of a similar mind, which of their treatments I preferred. After careful consideration it is my view that not much was gained in the 100 years that separate the two tracts, and in fact a few points have suffered in the ageing.
No-one for a moment questions that Baxter strove to be biblical in all his opinions. The problem is that he does not go out of his way to demonstrating it. In many ways the main weakness that applied to Herbert also applies to Baxter - a lack of broad engagement with Scripture to justify their positions. Perhaps this was just a question of contemporary style - I haven't read enough of the 17th Century divines, either Puritan or Moderate, to make a judgment. It was, of course, possible to quibble with Bucer's exegesis (indeed, given the advances in biblical scholarship, you would be concerned if you couldn't), but at least you could feel comfortable that he was attempting to use a range of texts to justify his pastoral applications. Baxter relies on one text, and while there is nothing objectionable in his conclusions it would have been nice to see him justify them occasionally.
An area in which Baxter differs markedly from Bucer is over the issue of public penance. It will be remembered that Bucer maintained that restoration of proper application of public penance was essential for the health of the church in those cases where gross sin has seriously damaged community as evidence that the repentance of the sinner has been genuine. Indeed, Bucer devoted a large portion of his treatise to this subject. However, Baxter ignores the subject completely, willing to take declarations of contrition as evidence enough of repentance. Bucer felt that pastoral discipline should extend to both the internal and the external spheres, while Baxter seems rooted in the former. Bucer's opinions swayed me initially and I have not had cause to alter my judgment.
This is not to dismiss Baxter's approach completely. On the whole he expands upon the work that Bucer had done previously, and his prose is both affecting and compelling. It is hard not to be moved while reading Baxter to do the very best possible in our pastoral roles. At some moments, however, Baxter's enthusiasm appears to run away with him and he is not as systematic as someone like Calvin would have been. Several of his points regarding the manner of oversight overlap greatly and it is possible that this section could have been simplified. However, this was probably a tendency of the age and should not be judged too harshly.
Showing posts with label Martin Bucer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Martin Bucer. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Bucer #5 - Constant Vigilence
These past few months have seen me attempting to come to grips with the reality of maintaining a garden. A brief flick through a horticultural magazine might lead you to believe that perfect lawns and flower beds can be maintained with the greatest of ease. A simple stroll through the garden once a day to assure yourself that everything is going well, stopping occasionally to pull out the odd weed, is all that is necessary.
Utter bollocks!
As I have been finding out, gardening is heartbreaking and backbreaking work. Lawns need constant mowing, soil needs digging and fertilizing, plants watering, and so forth. And even after all that, your plants may wither and die due to an unexpected heatwave. Rewarding labour, undoubtedly. But the true horticulturalist has precious little time to 'stop and smell the roses'. Gardens don't look after themselves.
Neither do sheep, according to our old chum Martin Bucer. You would be forgiven for thinking, following the last two weeks, that a pastor's duties are restricted to putting out forest fires wherever they might break out in the congregation. Yet, strangely, those whom Bucer designates as the "strong and healthy sheep" need as much attention as the rest. For, if the shepherd is caught unawares, mangy or false sheep might infiltrate and infect the flock. So even those whose faith seems as solid as a rock need care and attention to prevent them from falling under evil influences. Shepherds take the She'll Be Right approach at their peril.
So often in ministry we'll draw up the Archery Target diagram of church growth. You know the one - Gospel Partners in the centre, Members in the next level out, Attenders after that, and so on. The theory is that you need to move everyone one level closer inwards to build up the number of Partners at your disposal to help run your ministry programs and outreach. What they often fail to tell you is that those in the middle won't stay there unless you protect them. So the Gospel-Minded Minister might focus all his attention on seeking the Lost or Wounded in the belief that he has a secure communal base who have "got his back". Then the wolves get in and destroy the flock and everything falls in a heap.
This last section of Bucer has challenged me to remain attentive to those whom I would have otherwise have classified as Able To Look After Themselves. I shouldn't have been surprised; I have seen too many close friends fall away from what seemed like secure positions. I need to not take my Partners for granted. God has given me them to care for as much as those on the Outskirts. Once more, my arrogance comes in for a severe rebuke.
Summing up, I think Martin Bucer's book has been one of the most helpful books on pastoral care that I have read. It is not an exhaustive theological examination, but rather a practical handbook for those considering the shape and priorities of gospel ministry. As such, some of his points are able to be quibbled over, but there is no doubt that at the centre is a reliance on the Biblical patterns for ministry and a desire to apply them afresh for a church in Rebirth mode. I have made extensive use of it in preparing studies for my Youth Ministry Leaders and I will undoubtedly return to it again in the future.
Next up: George Herbert!
Utter bollocks!
As I have been finding out, gardening is heartbreaking and backbreaking work. Lawns need constant mowing, soil needs digging and fertilizing, plants watering, and so forth. And even after all that, your plants may wither and die due to an unexpected heatwave. Rewarding labour, undoubtedly. But the true horticulturalist has precious little time to 'stop and smell the roses'. Gardens don't look after themselves.
Neither do sheep, according to our old chum Martin Bucer. You would be forgiven for thinking, following the last two weeks, that a pastor's duties are restricted to putting out forest fires wherever they might break out in the congregation. Yet, strangely, those whom Bucer designates as the "strong and healthy sheep" need as much attention as the rest. For, if the shepherd is caught unawares, mangy or false sheep might infiltrate and infect the flock. So even those whose faith seems as solid as a rock need care and attention to prevent them from falling under evil influences. Shepherds take the She'll Be Right approach at their peril.
So often in ministry we'll draw up the Archery Target diagram of church growth. You know the one - Gospel Partners in the centre, Members in the next level out, Attenders after that, and so on. The theory is that you need to move everyone one level closer inwards to build up the number of Partners at your disposal to help run your ministry programs and outreach. What they often fail to tell you is that those in the middle won't stay there unless you protect them. So the Gospel-Minded Minister might focus all his attention on seeking the Lost or Wounded in the belief that he has a secure communal base who have "got his back". Then the wolves get in and destroy the flock and everything falls in a heap.
This last section of Bucer has challenged me to remain attentive to those whom I would have otherwise have classified as Able To Look After Themselves. I shouldn't have been surprised; I have seen too many close friends fall away from what seemed like secure positions. I need to not take my Partners for granted. God has given me them to care for as much as those on the Outskirts. Once more, my arrogance comes in for a severe rebuke.
Summing up, I think Martin Bucer's book has been one of the most helpful books on pastoral care that I have read. It is not an exhaustive theological examination, but rather a practical handbook for those considering the shape and priorities of gospel ministry. As such, some of his points are able to be quibbled over, but there is no doubt that at the centre is a reliance on the Biblical patterns for ministry and a desire to apply them afresh for a church in Rebirth mode. I have made extensive use of it in preparing studies for my Youth Ministry Leaders and I will undoubtedly return to it again in the future.
Next up: George Herbert!
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Bucer #4 - The Pastor as Agricultural Vet
At the tender age of 16 (in accordance with school practice at the time) I completed a week's worth of Work Experience. My employer of choice was a veterinary surgeon located an arduous 5 minute walk from my place of residence. Being of a generally kindly disposition towards animals in general, I thought that the life of a vet would not be such a bad path. At the end of the week I took a rather different view. While it was undeniably a fun experience, my observations reluctantly led me to the conclusion that the life of a vet consisted of a neverending line of cats for desexing interspersed with having one's fingers savaged by disgruntled ferrets. On the plus side, I learned that vets can demand that their Experiencees bring them cake on Fridays.
As Bucer begins to address the tasks of the pastor of Christian souls he takes his lead from Ezekiel 34:16:
I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, and the sleek and the strong I will watch over and shepherd with justice.
It appears, therefore, that despite my earlier reluctance I have been pressed into service as a sort of spiritual vet, caring for the flock of God in their various ailments and distresses. I am pleased to note, however, that castration is not a key task laid out by Scripture. Also, so far, cake has been plentiful.
Bucer then extemporises on the sheep who need particular attention and what the carer of souls should do for each.
The "lost sheep" are those who in truth belong to Christ but have yet to hear his voice. The pastor is therefore to preach the Word to all people so that they may hear and be compelled to join the flock. Bucer sets this down as a most urgent task to be taken to all people, no matter how corrupt a life they may lead. While conversions must never be forced, the proclaiming of Christ as Lord must be insistent so that the world may not doubt the urgency.
The "stray sheep" are those who have been part of God's flock but have "wandered off", no longer gathering with the Church. This may occur through the impact of false teaching or a general attachment to the world. In either case, the pastor is to deal with these like the lost sheep, urging them to return to their true shepherd. The pastor is not to simply "give up" because such a break in communion does not mean permanent apostasy. On the contrary, those who once knew Christ should be even more diligently urged to return to Him.
The "injured sheep" are those who remain in communion with other Christians but in their lives have fallen into open sin. Bucer devotes almost a third of his book to these particular sheep, a much larger section than any other, suggesting that he saw this as a difficult area that needed to be addressed carefully. He takes a view of the process of Repentance that many in our modern churches would find challenging. Of particular note is his insistence on the proper use of penance for those who have been involved in gross public sin. Where rebellion has been of such a nature as to fracture communion and cause dishonour to be brought on the name of Christ, Bucer states that it is insufficient for the reprobate to simply say, "I'm sorry, I won't do it again." Instead, he maintains that all those who are truly of Christ should submit gladly to the chastisement prescribed by pastors and rulers, including exclusion for a time from the Lord's Supper, not only so sin would be mortified in their own flesh but so that all would have assurance of the sincerity of the repentance and so the sinner would be able to be welcomed into fellowship again with confidence. In contrast to contemporary popular opinion, Bucer charges that a major failing of Rome was that it did not institute the practice of penance consistently, passing over them with indulgences and other ritualistic evasions.
Bucer is very committed to penance as a biblically mandated practice (displaying his Lutheran roots) in a way that seems a little draconian to modern readers. I can't make up my mind whether he is an Idealist or whether the stricter ministrations of the Reformers did indeed produce congregations who were more willing to submit to the chastisement of their elders. At a Ministry Development day within the last week a senior minister of a large local parish was reflecting on how difficult it is to bring modern Christians under any sort of discipline, as when issues of personal conduct are raised there is nothing stopping them from getting in a huff and taking their business elsewhere. Perhaps the approaching season of Lent is a good time to raise the subject of Christian discipline with our congregations. It is possible that a lax approach in modern times to self-discipline and examination has made communal discipline harder to accept. Thoughts?
Finally, the "weak sheep" are those who remain in the fellowship but have their commitment to Christ tested by the trials of the world or are inconsistent in the application of the Word to their daily lives. These sheep, states Bucer, require encouragement, having their attention drawn back to the grace of Christ to overcome the power of the world. Such sheep are not to be submitted to an inquisition of their faith, which would be discouraging, but should instead be led to submit more and more to the gracious Truth laid down in Scripture for their benefit.
Whew, some heavy stuff this week. The last post on Bucer coming soon...
As Bucer begins to address the tasks of the pastor of Christian souls he takes his lead from Ezekiel 34:16:
I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, and the sleek and the strong I will watch over and shepherd with justice.
It appears, therefore, that despite my earlier reluctance I have been pressed into service as a sort of spiritual vet, caring for the flock of God in their various ailments and distresses. I am pleased to note, however, that castration is not a key task laid out by Scripture. Also, so far, cake has been plentiful.
Bucer then extemporises on the sheep who need particular attention and what the carer of souls should do for each.
The "lost sheep" are those who in truth belong to Christ but have yet to hear his voice. The pastor is therefore to preach the Word to all people so that they may hear and be compelled to join the flock. Bucer sets this down as a most urgent task to be taken to all people, no matter how corrupt a life they may lead. While conversions must never be forced, the proclaiming of Christ as Lord must be insistent so that the world may not doubt the urgency.
The "stray sheep" are those who have been part of God's flock but have "wandered off", no longer gathering with the Church. This may occur through the impact of false teaching or a general attachment to the world. In either case, the pastor is to deal with these like the lost sheep, urging them to return to their true shepherd. The pastor is not to simply "give up" because such a break in communion does not mean permanent apostasy. On the contrary, those who once knew Christ should be even more diligently urged to return to Him.
The "injured sheep" are those who remain in communion with other Christians but in their lives have fallen into open sin. Bucer devotes almost a third of his book to these particular sheep, a much larger section than any other, suggesting that he saw this as a difficult area that needed to be addressed carefully. He takes a view of the process of Repentance that many in our modern churches would find challenging. Of particular note is his insistence on the proper use of penance for those who have been involved in gross public sin. Where rebellion has been of such a nature as to fracture communion and cause dishonour to be brought on the name of Christ, Bucer states that it is insufficient for the reprobate to simply say, "I'm sorry, I won't do it again." Instead, he maintains that all those who are truly of Christ should submit gladly to the chastisement prescribed by pastors and rulers, including exclusion for a time from the Lord's Supper, not only so sin would be mortified in their own flesh but so that all would have assurance of the sincerity of the repentance and so the sinner would be able to be welcomed into fellowship again with confidence. In contrast to contemporary popular opinion, Bucer charges that a major failing of Rome was that it did not institute the practice of penance consistently, passing over them with indulgences and other ritualistic evasions.
Bucer is very committed to penance as a biblically mandated practice (displaying his Lutheran roots) in a way that seems a little draconian to modern readers. I can't make up my mind whether he is an Idealist or whether the stricter ministrations of the Reformers did indeed produce congregations who were more willing to submit to the chastisement of their elders. At a Ministry Development day within the last week a senior minister of a large local parish was reflecting on how difficult it is to bring modern Christians under any sort of discipline, as when issues of personal conduct are raised there is nothing stopping them from getting in a huff and taking their business elsewhere. Perhaps the approaching season of Lent is a good time to raise the subject of Christian discipline with our congregations. It is possible that a lax approach in modern times to self-discipline and examination has made communal discipline harder to accept. Thoughts?
Finally, the "weak sheep" are those who remain in the fellowship but have their commitment to Christ tested by the trials of the world or are inconsistent in the application of the Word to their daily lives. These sheep, states Bucer, require encouragement, having their attention drawn back to the grace of Christ to overcome the power of the world. Such sheep are not to be submitted to an inquisition of their faith, which would be discouraging, but should instead be led to submit more and more to the gracious Truth laid down in Scripture for their benefit.
Whew, some heavy stuff this week. The last post on Bucer coming soon...
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Bucer #3 - Who Does the Dirty Work?
One of the more interesting aspects of historical theology is having to deal with your subject's socio-cultural biases. This can be a little unnerving when you're not prepared for it. As I started reading the pastoral theology of Martin Bucer I believe I was guilty of treating him as a slightly eccentric contemporary. His language was a tad archaic, sure, but he was paying due care to his use of Scripture and it felt as though we were developing an understanding of each other. For the first 80 pages or so it felt like a book that could have been written yesterday...well, maybe not yesterday, but you get my point.
Then dear old Martin decided to make a quick handbrake turn. Actually, that feels as though I'm blaming him, when it was really me who should have remembered that he was writing in the early 16th Century and his views on the world might not be quite the same as mine...
Yes, it's that dear old chestnut "Church & State". Not surprisingly (given his context) Bucer is all for the Godly Prince giving a leg-up to the Church whenever they are having problems keeping their sheep in the pen [more on the pastoral analogies of sheep next week]. In fact, Bucer feels that it is the duty of the godly ruler to see that those who have professed faith in Christ, and have thus become members of the Church, are not lax in their duties and professions of faith. Not that Bucer wants to use state troops to force conversions; yet he does think that those who do 'belong' to the Church should be compelled (if necessary) to follow the Church's requirements and judgments. If the heathen rulers have used force in order to pressure Christian people into compromising their wholehearted devotion to Jesus, then why should not the godly ruler use the same force to ensure that the godly ends of the Church can be promoted? Bucer does not say how he can have confidence that all professions of faith will be genuine when a threat of state force exists. Nor does he outline the extent to which 'compulsion' may be taken by the godly ruler without compromising the Gospel.
I don't propose to do a full political deconstruction of Bucer's position - other blogs exist that deal much better with the socio-political impacts of the Gospel than I can. While I will probably always have a soft spot for the Godly Ruler Theory (Alfred The Great is a personal Christian Superhero) plenty of fine theologians (e.g. Haurwas, O'Donovan) have discussed the application of appropriate eschatology when defining the limits of State co-operation with Gospel work. Simply put, the message of the New Testament is, "Give the State what can reasonably be considered due. Do your best to live in peace with authorities. Take whatever 'rights' you can, but don't expect Government to give you special treatment." It's less than I would like, but then I occasionally get the urge to crush opponents like beetles.
These days evangelical Christians are more-or-less happy to have the State out of their hair. While I might be tempted to call up Constable Plod if too many of my flock skip church on Sunday, I know that there are good reasons why it should remain my problem. Of course, modern evangelicals have a lot of problems with direct confrontation. There are probably not a few pastors out there who wouldn't mind a few Hired Goons in a box marked "Break Glass In Case Of Emergency" in their office. It feels unnatural to get ecclesiastical hands dirty.
While cultural circumstances have changed dramatically in the last 400 years, I still think that I can take away some positive points from Bucer on congregational discipline. First, it is not ungodly for pastors to expect standards of their congregation. It's not only a matter of common curtesy but it is for the sake of everybody's spiritual health. Christian love dictates that we place others before ourselves, always being ready to serve. Those who are lax in this regard should be made to see the error of their ways in a loving way. Second, there is nothing inherently godly in 'beating about the bush'. Discipline matters should not be filtered through subordinates. This is an area in which the shepherd must Lead, even though the sheep may bite. Third, despite what Bucer may have thought, Christian discipline must not adopt the standards of the world wholesale. There can be a temptation in some modern pastoral books to treat Church administration and discipline along lines common in corporate culture. Our discipline needs to be much more gracious than this. It does not mean that we back off the seriousness, but doors for true repentence must always be left open.
Then dear old Martin decided to make a quick handbrake turn. Actually, that feels as though I'm blaming him, when it was really me who should have remembered that he was writing in the early 16th Century and his views on the world might not be quite the same as mine...
Yes, it's that dear old chestnut "Church & State". Not surprisingly (given his context) Bucer is all for the Godly Prince giving a leg-up to the Church whenever they are having problems keeping their sheep in the pen [more on the pastoral analogies of sheep next week]. In fact, Bucer feels that it is the duty of the godly ruler to see that those who have professed faith in Christ, and have thus become members of the Church, are not lax in their duties and professions of faith. Not that Bucer wants to use state troops to force conversions; yet he does think that those who do 'belong' to the Church should be compelled (if necessary) to follow the Church's requirements and judgments. If the heathen rulers have used force in order to pressure Christian people into compromising their wholehearted devotion to Jesus, then why should not the godly ruler use the same force to ensure that the godly ends of the Church can be promoted? Bucer does not say how he can have confidence that all professions of faith will be genuine when a threat of state force exists. Nor does he outline the extent to which 'compulsion' may be taken by the godly ruler without compromising the Gospel.
I don't propose to do a full political deconstruction of Bucer's position - other blogs exist that deal much better with the socio-political impacts of the Gospel than I can. While I will probably always have a soft spot for the Godly Ruler Theory (Alfred The Great is a personal Christian Superhero) plenty of fine theologians (e.g. Haurwas, O'Donovan) have discussed the application of appropriate eschatology when defining the limits of State co-operation with Gospel work. Simply put, the message of the New Testament is, "Give the State what can reasonably be considered due. Do your best to live in peace with authorities. Take whatever 'rights' you can, but don't expect Government to give you special treatment." It's less than I would like, but then I occasionally get the urge to crush opponents like beetles.
These days evangelical Christians are more-or-less happy to have the State out of their hair. While I might be tempted to call up Constable Plod if too many of my flock skip church on Sunday, I know that there are good reasons why it should remain my problem. Of course, modern evangelicals have a lot of problems with direct confrontation. There are probably not a few pastors out there who wouldn't mind a few Hired Goons in a box marked "Break Glass In Case Of Emergency" in their office. It feels unnatural to get ecclesiastical hands dirty.
While cultural circumstances have changed dramatically in the last 400 years, I still think that I can take away some positive points from Bucer on congregational discipline. First, it is not ungodly for pastors to expect standards of their congregation. It's not only a matter of common curtesy but it is for the sake of everybody's spiritual health. Christian love dictates that we place others before ourselves, always being ready to serve. Those who are lax in this regard should be made to see the error of their ways in a loving way. Second, there is nothing inherently godly in 'beating about the bush'. Discipline matters should not be filtered through subordinates. This is an area in which the shepherd must Lead, even though the sheep may bite. Third, despite what Bucer may have thought, Christian discipline must not adopt the standards of the world wholesale. There can be a temptation in some modern pastoral books to treat Church administration and discipline along lines common in corporate culture. Our discipline needs to be much more gracious than this. It does not mean that we back off the seriousness, but doors for true repentence must always be left open.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Bucer #2 - Character and Care
First up, my apologies for the lateness of this entry. The last week has been full of ordination-relating busyness which has distracted from the main task of ministry. Back in the harness now...
In his consideration of those who should be selected for the task of being elders and pastors of the congregations of Christ it is no surprise that Bucer draws heavily from the New Testament examples and the instructions in the pastoral letters. For me it sounded all too familiar. Over the last three years I have had my own personal character and godliness carefully observed by many people. Interviews have been conducted and forms have been submitted in a long process culminating in yesterday when I stood in front of several bishops who laid hands on me and gave me a Bible to be used in a lifetime of Christian service. For the church in Bucer's time and in ours similar concerns for the right example of the pastor for the flock are paramount. What is interesting in Bucer's work on this point is not content but style.
As Bucer constructs his pastoral framework it is remarkable how the personal life of the pastor flows naturally out of the active headship of Jesus that he established earlier and then into the task of caring for the sheep that he will expound next. He writes in such a way that it is almost impossible to see the seam in his stitching. The effect is in the end an encouragement not to compartmentalise too strongly the character and care of the pastor as resulting from the rule of Christ. Both the preparation of the pastor in their godliness of life and the tasks which have been set out are an expression of divine preservation and predestination. Sometimes I am tempted to categorise what I have before me in terms of My Job and Jesus' Job. It's true that we can't collapse them, but neither should they lead to competition or confusion. Bucer definitely takes the personal life of the pastor as integrated into the bigger picture of Christs' rule over His own flock, not an activity that occurs outside of His headship.
In his consideration of those who should be selected for the task of being elders and pastors of the congregations of Christ it is no surprise that Bucer draws heavily from the New Testament examples and the instructions in the pastoral letters. For me it sounded all too familiar. Over the last three years I have had my own personal character and godliness carefully observed by many people. Interviews have been conducted and forms have been submitted in a long process culminating in yesterday when I stood in front of several bishops who laid hands on me and gave me a Bible to be used in a lifetime of Christian service. For the church in Bucer's time and in ours similar concerns for the right example of the pastor for the flock are paramount. What is interesting in Bucer's work on this point is not content but style.
As Bucer constructs his pastoral framework it is remarkable how the personal life of the pastor flows naturally out of the active headship of Jesus that he established earlier and then into the task of caring for the sheep that he will expound next. He writes in such a way that it is almost impossible to see the seam in his stitching. The effect is in the end an encouragement not to compartmentalise too strongly the character and care of the pastor as resulting from the rule of Christ. Both the preparation of the pastor in their godliness of life and the tasks which have been set out are an expression of divine preservation and predestination. Sometimes I am tempted to categorise what I have before me in terms of My Job and Jesus' Job. It's true that we can't collapse them, but neither should they lead to competition or confusion. Bucer definitely takes the personal life of the pastor as integrated into the bigger picture of Christs' rule over His own flock, not an activity that occurs outside of His headship.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Bucer #1 - Christ In Charge
Martin Bucer produced his handbook on pastoral theology, Concerning the True Care of Souls, in 1538, noting the contemporary 'Deplorable and Pernicious Sate of Religious Schism and Disorder' and expressing a desire to 'Return to True Unity and Good Christian Order in the Churches'. In other words, the contemporary church was in a Right Old Mess due primarily, as Bucer saw it, of a lack of a clear understanding as to who was to have authority (if at all) over the church.
On the one hand, the government of the traditional church in Rome accused the Reformers (or Lutherans) of overthrowing an ecclesiastical order established by God by their insistence that Scripture Alone should the guide of true faith and, as such, had separated themselves from the true Body of Christ. Alternatively, certain sects of the Radical Reformation criticised those leaders of church reform who wished to hold onto any ordered system of church government, stating that since the Gospel called individuals to a personal faith and repentence it would be inappropriate to place any human constraints on the expression of such a personal faith. Bucer himself denounces both positions, making it clear that he was neither a slave to tradition or a minimalist. He believed that Scripture clearly taught the need for ministers to be set apart for the good order of the gathering of believers in particular places. But what exactly was their role to be?
The early chapters of Bucer's work are devoted to constructing an ecclesiology in which the temporal Church is under the direct and personal rule of the resurrected Christ. Those who have been set aside for leadership of the community of faith (whether in the areas of instruction in the Word or the service of good works) must not assume for themselves what rightly belongs to Him. Either an over- or under-developed ecclesiology will ultimately fall into this error. In Bucer's mind Jesus is not absent or distant from our communal life, but is personally and actively involved in our church governance through those whom the Spirit has set apart. The issue, naturally, is that because Jesus is spiritually rather than bodily present in our gatherings and sacraments that the temptation arises for us to either a) rule in His absence, or b) deny His claims of authority. It also prompts the temptation for church rulers to claim credit for what Christ is actively accomplishing in the life of His Church. However:
On the one hand, the government of the traditional church in Rome accused the Reformers (or Lutherans) of overthrowing an ecclesiastical order established by God by their insistence that Scripture Alone should the guide of true faith and, as such, had separated themselves from the true Body of Christ. Alternatively, certain sects of the Radical Reformation criticised those leaders of church reform who wished to hold onto any ordered system of church government, stating that since the Gospel called individuals to a personal faith and repentence it would be inappropriate to place any human constraints on the expression of such a personal faith. Bucer himself denounces both positions, making it clear that he was neither a slave to tradition or a minimalist. He believed that Scripture clearly taught the need for ministers to be set apart for the good order of the gathering of believers in particular places. But what exactly was their role to be?
The early chapters of Bucer's work are devoted to constructing an ecclesiology in which the temporal Church is under the direct and personal rule of the resurrected Christ. Those who have been set aside for leadership of the community of faith (whether in the areas of instruction in the Word or the service of good works) must not assume for themselves what rightly belongs to Him. Either an over- or under-developed ecclesiology will ultimately fall into this error. In Bucer's mind Jesus is not absent or distant from our communal life, but is personally and actively involved in our church governance through those whom the Spirit has set apart. The issue, naturally, is that because Jesus is spiritually rather than bodily present in our gatherings and sacraments that the temptation arises for us to either a) rule in His absence, or b) deny His claims of authority. It also prompts the temptation for church rulers to claim credit for what Christ is actively accomplishing in the life of His Church. However:
All power and the whole work in this matter belong to Christ our dear Lord; but ministers are his instruments, through whom he effects and fulfils this work of his in his elect. (chapter 3)
This is a sobering thought, particularly when we consider the many aspects of our contemporary church culture on which the Scriptures are silent (home groups, online evangelism, etc). In ways that both the Apostles and Reformers could never have forseen the Word of God continues to go out into the world and new ministers are raised up. Yet we here in the 21st Century should have confidence that where His people are gathered Christ rules not mystically but through the (mostly unlikely) people that He has chosen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)