Week 13 — Hansen’s Response (Jones)
1. Church as Mother. Well, some of you liked this metaphor
(from Calvin), and some of you didn’t. It may come to a
surprise to know that Luther also used this metaphor, in
several occasions. Naturally, the Reformers did not referred
to the old Catholic notion of the Church as “mater et
magistra” (mother and teacher), but as the environmentspace in which we are nurtured in our faith through Word
and Sacraments.
For Luther, especially, this image had a strong
pneumatological presupposition, in the sense that we are
born anew through the Holy Spirit, which in turn gathers and sustains this
community that we call church.
So, it is not so much the church as institution that is talked about here, but the
church as the Holy Spirit’s koinonia, the Church as event, as happening. This goes
back to one of the metaphors used by Moltmann referring to the Holy Spirit as
mother…and I believe that this accent is correct if it is understood in a parental,
nurturing way.
2. The empirical vs. normative
dimensions of the church. In a way the
theology of the Reformers also spoke of this
but with a different language: the visible and
hidden aspects of the church. But this
language can be a little bit confusing —for the
hidden church also acquires a “visible”
expression through the community gathered
around Word and Sacraments.
Yet this distinction between the empiricalvisible and the hidden-normative is
important, for it led to a non-sectarian vision
of the church: in this eon, the empirical church is a "corpus mixtum," a mix bunch
of saints and sinners. While externally we may all seem Christian, only God knows
who the true believers are. It is not up to us to judge on these matters.
Besides, the fact that believers themselves are also simultaneously saint and
sinners, adds another dimension that preclude any boasting or self-righteousness.
And last but not least, the empirical church has to deal with the possibilities and
limitations of any earthly and temporal organization —such as the ELCA, PCUSA, etc.
The hidden church is always so under the external fellowship of the Church of
Christ, and it is always a challenge not to confuse these two dimensions, but also not
to disregard the important visible-empirical dimension of the church. The latter
should be understood as a creature servant of the Gospel. When it is not so, as in the
case of the church of Rome (Reformation times) or the co-opted church during Nazi
times, it signals a time for confessing.
3. While for Reformation theology the “marks” of
the church has been the preaching of the word
and the correct administration of the
Sacraments, Luther also developed during the
30’s and 40’s (See, On the Councils and the
Churches) 7 marks of the church.
This was an attempt to “flesh out” Word and
Sacraments, and the effect that these have upon
the community of saints. These marks are:
Baptism, the Holy Supper, office of the keys, the
ministry, confession of the faith,
acknowledgement of government and marriage,
persecution (cross) and peaceableness (love).
These criteria were developed as the Lutheran movement adopted a clearer profile
vis-à-vis Roman Catholicism, Anabaptists and the Swiss (Reformed). In any case, this
“expansion” of the code shows as well the need to develop “marks” which better
speak to a contemporary situation (openness), while being grounded in the two
central marks of Word and Sacraments (bounded). I believe that this approach can
help us as we face this question about the marks through Ward’s thesis regarding
the liquid church.
4. Finally, a comment about
something that may seem to have
nothing to do with our topic ─the
shape, architecture, distribution, layout, and general atmospheres of our
sanctuaries or worship places, i.e., the
issue of space.
I consider it to be an important issue,
for the "space" in which we gather is not ancillary or secondary to what is central to
the message and event of the church. Since we are embodied, symbolic and esthetic
beings, much is communicated as to the core of what the Gospel is through the space
in which we gather, or through the space that we shape as we gather.
These things may seem trivial matters but they are not, especially when they
contradict what is being proclaimed as the gospel. Think, for example, about what
we communicate through our Eucharistic practices, the location of the baptismal
font, the colors of the walls, the presence or lack of plants and vegetation, the size
and location of windows and light, etc. This is not to be confused with what the
Gospel is all about, but if we confess a God incarnated, a Holy Spirit that dwells
among us, then “matter” also acquires a sort of “sacramental dimension.”
The space that we create both contain our bodies and are an expression of our
embodiment…so, if it is the embodiment of the Spirit, how does space reflect that?
Far from suggesting that you should become architects or interior decorators I just
want to call your attention on the importance of "space" as visibilization . Something
to keep in mind as many of us are about to step into ministry…