John Calvin's pulpit in Geneva
Today is Saturday, and all of us identified with Jesus Christ are anticipating corporate worship tomorrow. Corporate worship is an old-fashioned way of talking about “going to church on Sunday with other believers.” Corporate worship exhibits a fortifying bond, a palpable unity, a unique collaboration.
But do these blessed realities exist only in church? Only on Sunday? Only during worship?
In his blog posted today, Dr. Michael Horton recommends the “faithful presence” (James Hunter) in the world, in society, and in the public square, of Christians-as-individuals. We simply must be deeply encouraged by his pastoral impulse to warn preachers not to burden God’s people with calls to radical, heroic, world-changing Christianity. Rather, says Dr. Horton, those sitting before us preachers tomorrow should be encouraged “to live out their identity in Christ where they are in all sorts of ordinary ways that sometimes turn out to present extraordinary opportunities for extraordinary service.”
Amen! Times seven.
But there’s more to be said.
Dr. Horton closes by asking us preachers, we who are entrusted with the very Word of God: What will you say?
Given the proper Scripture text . . . as part of a distinctively Christian response to the gospel of grace . . . here’s what I’d say.
To the nurse who dragged herself out of bed to attend church after having worked a fifteen-hour shift, I would encourage her to ally herself with co-believers in her profession so together they might lift a united Christian witness that (1) opposes the contemporary secularizing and amoralizing of the healthcare industry, and (2) advocates the Christian view of human beings as divine image-bearers as essential to the practice of healthcare.
To the banker who extended a low-interest loan to that young family for their first home, I would encourage him to join with co-believing bankers to establish together a Christian foundation that, as part of its united Christian witness, (1) assists low-income, responsible, first-time home buyers in under-resourced neighborhoods, and (2) cultivates healthy nuclear families as the God-ordained foundation of a well-ordered society.
To the Sunday school teacher, the high schooler, the struggling artist, the pro-bono lawyer—I would encourage all of them to find, or to create, associations and relationships in which they could live out, concretely demonstrate, and publicly articulate, beyond the church and between Sundays, together, corporately, their shared Christian faith-commitment in their vocational fields.
Let us not be misled: today’s generation of churchgoers is no more tired, no more struggling, no more bedraggled and frazzled, than the generations of our faithful parents and grandparents. Who responded to faithful gospel preaching by together building Christian schools, together establishing Christian hospitals, together forming Christian labor associations and benevolence societies. As part of their corporate public Christian identity that fortified faith, demonstrated unity, and exemplified collaboration. Theirs was a communio sanctorum extra ecclesiam (exercising the communion of the saints beyond the church).
It may be true that nowadays we need not recommend as heroes for our boys and girls William Wilberforce or Rosa Parks. Not only are such “transformationalists” (Dr. Horton’s word) rare, but theirs might not be the calling given to most of us ordinary believers.
But if it’s heroes we’re looking for, we could do far worse than to encourage our children to follow, in their generation, the corporate and collaborative Christian heroism of their own parents and grandparents.
You wrote: To the banker who extended a low-interest loan to that young family for their first home, I would encourage him to join with co-believing bankers to establish together a Christian foundation that, as part of its united Christian witness, (1) assists low-income, responsible, first-time home buyers in under-resourced neighborhoods, and (2) cultivates healthy nuclear families as the God-ordained foundation of a well-ordered society.”
I would say: Is the banker ‘less-Christian’ if he doesn’t think he has the time to start a NEW foundation? Would you be ok with his decision to instead become a part of the YMCA instead and aid their efforts to house (multi-religious) families in affordable homes?
T H,
Thanks for your intriguing question! Permit three comments.
(1) Personally I would probably avoid writing about an individual banker being more- or less-Christian on the basis of this or that response. This for several reasons. First, I’m not clear about what “being less Christian” really means. More importantly, my focus is on communal Christian witness, so categories pertaining to individual qualities aren’t part of this discussion. Although, I admit, these categories may be part of other discussions elsewhere that relate broadly to this topic.
(2) If the YMCA can facilitate a (a) united (b) Christian witness that assists-and-cultivates (as per my original formulation), then this might indeed be a valid direction to pursue together with co-believers.
(3) You undoubtedly realized already that nothing I’ve written suggests that only Christian families would receive the assistance and cultivation provided by a communal Christian foundation like the one I described.
Thank you for the reply – your emphasis on communal Christian activities is important and I think that there are real benefits to the idea of organizing like-minded people to do interesting things. From what I know of the Christian Labour Association of Canada (CLAC), they seem to have developed a strong presence in the labor-relations field because of their alternative approach to negotiations and contract renewals. It’s an interesting example of people pursuing a unified vision of ‘doing labor’ in a better way.
However, my concern about your initial post was the fact that you were proposing that a sermon include the following suggestions (or does a suggestion become a directive when it comes from the pulpit?) for people to live out a more fruitful witness to their neighbors and neighborhoods. Wouldn’t you want to affirm the legitimacy of the vocations that these people are involved in (bankers, nurses, artists) in their current practice?
The high calling of every believer is to remain in this world awhile, bearing witness to the work of Christ and the presence of the Spirit in their hearts. Suggesting from the pulpit (“here’s what I’d say”) that they should do more in their vocation would seem to be saying that their current labor wasn’t fully realized yet.
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this. It seems to me that there isn’t actually a lack in what Dr. Horton was proposing.
(Maybe I can be clearer than I was above)
You wrote about the valiant efforts of those “Who responded to faithful gospel preaching by together building Christian schools, together establishing Christian hospitals, together forming Christian labor associations and benevolence societies. As part of their corporate public Christian identity that fortified faith, demonstrated unity, and exemplified collaboration. Theirs was a communio sanctorum extra ecclesiam (exercising the communion of the saints beyond the church).”
To what extent should faithful gospel preaching be accompanied by calls to unite together to create Christian organizations that serve to further express as corporate public Christian identity of fortified faith, demonstrable unity, and exemplary collaboration?
Would this call to joint effort run the risk of binding consciences to a particular form of action (the “biblical way to run a banking collective” for example) and mute any disagreement on method among individual Christians who might have different philosophies on such things?
Or in another way of looking at it, could the community rather than the church be a more appropriate place for this type of collective uniting around a common cause? A gathering where able-bodied and able-minded Christians win the day for wise practices to form the basis of this association?
Thank you for your thoughtful replies.
First, regarding the Horton proposal: I find in that proposal not a whiff of encouragement for Christians to collaborate beyond the church in expressing/living a communal Christian identity and testimony within their respective vocational fields in society.
Second, your question, “To what extent should faithful gospel preaching be accompanied by calls to unite together to create Christian organizations that serve to further express a corporate Christian identity?” is (with adjustments) exactly, precisely the question of the hour, the day, the year!! It constitutes the very hinge upon which much of this debate is turning.
So let me adjust your question (without trying to be evasive, but only to be clarifying): To what extent should faithful gospel preaching include calls to unite together in order to express a corporate Christian identity beyond the church in society? You see, the goal isn’t necessarily organizations per se; they are one means available. Here’s my answer: To the same extent that the preaching text properly calls for believers to practice the “communion of the saints,” whereby every believer is “duty-bound to use his gifts readily and cheerfully for the benefit and well-being of the other members” (Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 21, qu. 55). My point is that the exercise of the communion of the saints is nowhere restricted or limited, either in Scripture or in the Confessions, to the square footage of a church’s worship space. It is the believer’s life-calling.
Third, let me comment on the issue of binding consciences. My short answer to your question is this: Yes, it does run that risk, not inherently but only accidentally. Some people (including preachers) might claim that this-or-that concrete expression of corporate Christian identity in society is required for entering the kingdom of God. Some might even claim this-or-that concrete expression is identical to the kingdom of God. Others, more wisely and pastorally, would suggest that a or some concrete expression of corporate Christian identity in society belongs to the Christian lifestyle in the world. I’m advocating the latter.
(In the following paragraph, please note these key words and their implications: “principally,” “some,” “virtually,” and “seems.” These are seriously meant.) It is beyond passing interest to me that this potential objection arises principally among some Presbyterians for whom this prohibition against binding the individual’s conscience functions de facto virtually as articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae, the doctrine by which the church stands or falls. Note well the emphasis on individual conscience, and on the de facto function of this doctrine. Its petulant tone seems inescapable, to the extent that individual freedom of conscience—as crucially important as it is, an indispensable fruit of the gospel—nevertheless cannot serve as the cornerstone of a Christian philosophy of life.
Finally, in response to your last question: Yes, “outside the church” would be the appropriate context for concretely expressing a corporate Christian identity within a vocational field in society.