Is COVID-19 the end of the modern world? (of two)

Rethinking Ecclesiology [New Daily Theology] Series 2

Translated by Lin Yu

Should we passively solve the "crime" or actively repair the "relationship"?

上期〈新冠是世界的終結者？—再思救贖論〉文章中，我以「新冠代表了所知世界的終結」為起頭，特別是「現代世界」的終結。「現代」，在此所指的比較是社會制度和文化，即生活和生存方式，而非與「現代性」（modernity）相關的哲學概念。

I have tried to illustrate the incomplete understanding of the gospel that results from a soteriology derived from the Protestant Reformed Church that overemphasizes justification by grace alone. This does not mean that "justification" is unnecessary or unreal in the doctrine of salvation. Rather, reducing the focus of salvation to justification has greatly affected Christology. For example, the positive aspects of Christ's life such as the incarnation, resurrection, and ascension were eclipsed by the negative aspect of the cross. The Christian's "adopted" status in Christ becomes less important because of the emphasis on sin management, legalism, and godliness. Reflected in church life, the mission of Christians is only the gospel mission of saving souls, or the slogan "training disciples who make disciples."

A more comprehensive view and attitude towards salvation should be centered on positive "relationship", replacing the negative "sin" and "law". In this way, salvation is not only a passive solution to "sin" and "violation of the law", but also a positive restoration of four levels of "relationships": 1) with God; 2) with others; 3) with oneself; 4) with creation. All things are like the end-time scene described in Isaiah 11: “The wolf will dwell with the lamb.”

Regardless of whether it is positive or negative, salvation is needed; the key lies in where the focus of salvation should be.

The redemption of these four levels of relationship encompasses the fullness of the gospel better than the individual-focused, pared-back gospel that prevails in the modern Western world, especially in the United States and its derivative evangelicalism. The theological gains and losses of evangelicals are the result of the 16th-century Protestant Reformation, 17th-century German Pietism, and the 18th-century American and British anti-intellectual revivalism and holiness movements. holiness movements), ultimately paving the way for the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Unfortunately, we still have to deal with these effects today. For example, is there a conflict between science and faith? God is the Creator of all things. Can modern science in different fields study His creation? Look forward to future articles exploring the tensions within these movements and fundamentalism.

In the midst of such a historical and theological current, let us turn our attention to rethinking ecclesiology.

attend, or participate in

The late theologian Stanley J. Grenz once pointed out that one of the shortcomings of evangelicalism is the lack of ecclesiology. Comparing it with Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and even some mainstream Protestant denominations with rich traditions, you can understand what Glens means. How easy it is to go from church to church, with or without reason or for any reason. This also includes people who “love Jesus but don’t love church” and don’t go to church (refer to Barna Group’s survey:https://www.barna.com/research/meet-love-jesus-not-church/).

Evangelical Christians seem to choose church based on personal preference rather than calling. Have you ever wondered why officially becoming a church "member" is more important than simply "attending"? Furthermore, can most evangelical churches come up with a good theological answer to this question, not just to vote on a budget in a membership meeting or to qualify as a candidate for office? Furthermore, what is the place of the sacraments such as baptism and the Lord's Supper?

One of the reasons for the weak ecclesiology is that the gospel in the traditional framework places more emphasis on the salvation of "justification by grace through faith alone", which leads to sacraments such as baptism and the Lord's Supper, as well as the status of active members and the participation of local churches. Relegated to second place; in other words, optional.

The fact that the church has become an "option" is actually a phenomenon that only occurs in recent Christian history; it did not exist in the Middle Ages, nor could it be found in the Reformation of the 16th and 17th centuries and in Europe afterward. At that time, the boundaries between states also became religious boundaries. It was not until the bloody Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) that European residents were allowed to move to another state if they did not like the Christian sects of the original state. However, this is very different from the modern choice of church out of "anything goes."

Where does the “anything goes” mentality come from? Most came from Puritan pilgrims seeking religious freedom who left Europe after the Reformation and found the United States as a new country in the New World in the 18th century. A key experiment at that time was the separation of church and state, and more importantly, the denomination of both sectarian and non-denominational churches. Such a move would be labeled a "separatist" and rejected in the European homeland.

Unlike European churches steeped in age-old rituals and class baggage, in the new world of America, denominational and non-denominational churches have effectively reduced church membership to cultural and consumer preferences. In addition, the Reformed Church, especially Calvin, replaced the Eucharist with preaching and became the center of worship.

After the evolution of frontier revivalism and holiness movements in the United States in the 18th and 19th centuries, according to historian Russell E. Richey, the revivalist mentality of "loving souls" cultivated the most important aspects of worship in the 20th century. The revivalist practice of the climactic "altar call" became a liturgy in its own right, superseding all other ways of being a church.

▲Can the church be a place where believers can be renewed like green pastures and streams?

Outreach or Inclusion?

Fast forward to the second half of the 20th century, and this programmed revivalist structure laid the foundation for the thoroughly programmed modern megachurch movement. This consumerist movement, which has arisen mainly in evangelical circles, has gradually become the unofficial standard for judging the quality of churches.

In other words, regardless of size, churches are evaluated on whether their preaching, music, leadership culture, etc., meet the ideal standards emphasized by flagship megachurches. The "option" status of the modern church is a stark reminder that the majority of attendees are anonymous megachurches, which seem to be the "churches that arrived in the United States and became businesses" as Pastor Richard Halverson quoted in the previous article mocked them. Of course it shouldn't be a business. However, many churches today, no matter how large or small their membership is, want to run and operate the church as a business. This is quite problematic.

The epidemic has forced physical churches to close and move online. There are more options for "attending" church virtually, making the church's "option" status more obvious. I suspect many people will be chuckling at the reduced activity. Watching worship online (or pretending to watch it after going online) should be more convenient. At least you don’t have to dress up or even get out of bed.

It’s easy to judge this unworshipful laziness, but the question should be: Did the “corporate” component of the church before the pandemic only reflect the modern world that we don’t know how to escape from?

What needs to be considered carefully is: Did the evangelical church before the epidemic really find "rest" in Christ and the "easy yoke" He promised (see Matthew 11:28-30)? If the answer is yes, then why do so many people secretly rejoice in the fact that they don’t have to attend church in person?

More importantly, if the above-mentioned four-level relationship of salvation is really the broader purpose of the gospel, can the church expand outward enough? Or do you place too much emphasis on inward cohesion?

According to Acts 6, Stephen and the first deacons were called to ensure that the needy widows had adequate food. In Calvin's time in Geneva, church deacons were also devoted to providing for the needs of the city's poor. However, the establishment of church deacons today is mainly for "fellowship", "reception", "administration", etc. that are isolated from the outside world. These are not unimportant, but perhaps a better balance between outreach and cohesion needs to be achieved. If church ministry is not about cohesion but outreach, will the worship and edification we experience in the church allow us to serve the church for a broader calling after being fed? world?

Theologian Darrell L. Guder mentioned in his book The Continuing Conversion of the Church (2000) that he repeatedly invited Margaret, who had administrative gifts, to participate Various church matters and committees were politely declined. When a frustrated Good asked her why she never said "yes," her thoughtful answer was noteworthy: "My calling is to be a children's librarian; and it takes a lot of work to do it well. I'm there to be Christ's Messenger; this must be my first consideration."

Or for many people, knowing that the tasks entrusted by God are outside the church, can the church no longer become a place where limited energy is consumed, but a place where strength is renewed? After all, God’s work is everywhere for relationship redemption. The COVID-19 has interrupted the daily life of the church and given it the opportunity to reflect, hoping to bring about changes so that full membership and participation in local churches will no longer be seen as secondary or as an option. Rather it is properly regarded as an integral part of the gospel of salvation. This gospel is not only embodied in the Word of God, but also expressed through the sacraments.

Individually or as a whole

An incomplete understanding of the sacraments fosters a view of the church as an option. For example, baptism is often interpreted as a personal event that expresses and confirms a "personal" commitment to Christ; baptism is not closely related to meaningful church membership. Shouldn't baptism be seen as a "church" event, the collective welcoming of new members into the family of God, locally and globally, through a sure sign of personal death and resurrection with Christ?

As for the Holy Communion ceremony, many evangelical churches are "memorialists" (Translation Note: It advocates that the bread and cup are only symbolic, and the Holy Communion is mainly a commemorative ceremony.), and separate baptism and Holy Communion; members of the church should be Baptism with the sign is no longer a necessary prerequisite for receiving Holy Communion. Christology loses weight as a result. In the Eucharist ceremony, there is no longer the real presence of Christ; without a real encounter and union with Christ, how can His people be connected with each other in the Lord?

I am not advocating the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation (transubstantiation. Annotation: While the bread and cup retain their appearance, their essence is transformed into the body and blood of Jesus.). The Lutheran and Reformed views on the Eucharist are sufficient to understand the "real" or "spiritual" presence of Christ, and are more consistent with truth and more meaningful than the Zwinglian Memorialist view. I myself follow the trinitarian interpretation of Calvin and the Reformed Church to view Jesus’ “spiritual presence.” Whatever the interpretation of Christ's "real presence" in the Eucharist, it is important to understand that through the sharing of bread and cup in the local congregation, we have a real encounter with the dying and risen Christ, which is the renewal of the mystery of worship, Transformation. And through Christ’s complete presence in the Eucharist, His entire “body,” the Church throughout the ages, is also miraculously present every time we break bread.

Through the Holy Communion, communion with the church throughout the earth, representing all peoples, tribes, nations, and classes, has comprehensive significance for discerning our status and role in the four-level redemption relationship. Especially on current issues such as the pursuit of social justice, I think we should leave it to God’s guidance. Individuals and local churches must live out His peace (peace, shalom) in the last days in this world in advance according to His individual will and relative calling for us; they should not fall into "liberation theology" and form a set of The new social justice legalism is used to judge brothers and sisters and other churches.

I believe evangelicals are called during the pandemic to restore meaningful sacraments. Not only because the feasibility of “online Holy Communion” became a hot topic at the beginning of the epidemic, but also because in such times of suffering (especially today’s “Zoom burnout”), it is not always possible or necessary to say anything from the pulpit. This is exactly the opposite of what tradition emphasizes.

What is always needed in life is an encounter with the living God in Christ through the Holy Spirit. The Eucharist best creates such an encounter - through teaching and preaching, where God's Word is put in its rightful place. What the modern world lacks is the comfort of stability. In the post-pandemic turmoil, the only thing that can bring comfort and peace is the mystical presence of Christ, especially found in the sacraments. Unfortunately, this part has been lost for a long time; unfortunately, an idolatrous "Christian Hollywood" celebrity culture has emerged.

Big and obvious, or small and inconspicuous

Megachurches foster a "Christian Hollywood" celebrity culture, especially one based on "good" preaching, followed by books. It's easy to blame megachurches for many of the ills of evangelicalism, but it's hard to imagine what 20th-century evangelicalism would be without megachurches like Saddleback (where Rick Warren is the senior pastor) or Willow Creek. What kind of situation. Many people’s faith has been greatly blessed and strengthened through the ministry of megachurches anointed by God.

Megachurches have indeed been a great blessing in many ways. However, not all characteristics are sound. One is that the larger the church, the more disconnected and disconnected the ministry from the pastor becomes. Pastors no longer know the names of every sheep in the church. Through division of labor, pastors with more "important" status only share preaching and leadership, and participate in strategy, ministry, and work from an abstract theoretical perspective (rather than doing it personally). Systematic development to provide discipleship and membership care.

Author and speaker Skye Jethani accurately observes that when the public ministry of teaching and preaching (and perhaps writing best-selling books) transcends the sacraments, the central figure in worship is no longer Christ, In his place is a celebrity pastor with a golden tongue. Compared with the countless famous evangelical pastors who are famous for their preaching, which well-known Roman Catholic or Orthodox priests and bishops have you heard of? Could it be that the ancient Christian tradition, which places more emphasis on the sacraments, can focus worship on Christ through the breaking of bread and passing the cup, which symbolize sharing of the body and blood of Christ?

What follows is a "huge" mentality, and various programs, ideas, and activities flatten the church, leading to the above-mentioned evangelical fatigue. Specifically, one of the characteristics of megachurches is that they regularly hold special conferences and invite famous speakers. However, to put it bluntly, it is just a dazzling facade to promote books. So many "Christian Hollywood" pastors have stumbled in recent years, whether it's abuse of power or sexual abuse, or public denials of the Christian faith. You can see how it is necessary to keep a giant organization running smoothly in order to remain successful amidst personal falls and a toxic ministry culture. The dark side of appearance.

The "Me Too" (#metoo) movement has caused megachurches to lose credibility overall; social restrictions during the COVID-19 epidemic may push evangelical churches from the megachurch model to small communities with profound beliefs. Even though it is relatively decentralized, it can bring out greater potential for non-corporate, non-abstract, personal pastoral, and "real-name" ministry.

Such smaller gatherings not only help the unstable society during the epidemic, but also allow us to better grasp the true and rich nature of human beings. The next article will rethink anthropology in theological philosophy.

Let me end by quoting Jesus’ parable of the Kingdom of Heaven. The philosophy of megachurches is "the bigger the better"; the kingdom of heaven that Jesus spoke of is like a mustard seed that, although small when planted, grows into the largest tree in the garden. Megachurches pursue “the more visible the better.” The kingdom of heaven that Jesus spoke of is like leaven, a small and inconspicuous quantity that slowly rises 60 pounds of dough.

As an evangelical church, how can we become smaller and more inconspicuous in the post-pandemic era, but grow like mustard seeds and leaven like leaven?

Oh God! I pray for your guidance. Amen!

▲How can the church grow in the new daily life after the epidemic, like a tiny mustard seed, like an inconspicuous leaven that makes the whole dough leaven?

Rev. Dr. Clement Wen, currently serves as an Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology at China Evangelical Theological Seminary in Taiwan. He served as the youth pastor of the Chinese Bible Church in Maryland (2010-2015), and later obtained a doctorate from the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. Pastor Wen is the son of Professor Wen Yingqian, the former chairman of the board of directors of KRC. He and his wife Lu Xiaojun have two sons, Ethan and Micah.