The Institutional Church and Wedding versus Marriage
I am presently reading Houses That Change the World by Wolfgang Simson. First, let me say that those whom I disagree with on theological issues while still recommending them in regard to important contributions of thought is a very short list as far as I am concerned. It’s maybe one hand, in regard to fingers. At this point, I am not ready to add Wolfgang Simson to the list, but I still feel that this book is must reading for every Christian living today.
A revised version, by what means unclear, titled The House Church Book, completely rewrites chapter two (according to my Kindle version) and edits out Simpson’s historical account of persecution suffered by house churches via the Reformers. I have ordered a hardcopy to confirm this interesting edit. According to Simpson on pages 67 and 68, the Reformers were responsible for civil laws banning home fellowships (especially in regard to the Anabaptists) and were directly and indirectly responsible for at least 30,000 Anabaptist deaths.
We must remember that the Western institutional church is a product of the Reformation, and the level of denial regarding its bad fruit never ceases to amaze. How can those who put people to death for disagreeing with them on theological issues be our heroes? The Fox Book of Martyrs, considered a classic among Evangelicals, shamelessly excludes the historical Protestant inquisition.
So far, and from everything I have seen from a cursory perusal through the rest of the book, it is a profound form of thinking out of the box in regard to Western tradition. I pause here as I work through the book to add thoughts to his idea of a wedding ceremony versus married life (p. 19).
A wedding is a formal ceremony that marks a commitment to sharing a life together. It is a formal public confession. It takes much planning and proper execution. Married couples do not repeat the ceremony on a weekly basis. Married life is much different from the ceremony—it moves on from symbolism to substance. It moves on to The Way (the initial term for Christianity) from the what.
Is church a weekly ceremony? A weekly celebration? Is life imparted by the living out of life, or something symbolic of that life? Do marriages grow by the initial ceremony? Do we have a marriage ceremony every week in order to grow in our marriage? Listen to Protestant pastors (especially those of the Neo-Reformed bent) carefully; in essence, life does come by celebrating our initial conversion. “Grace” is imparted by coming to the “worship service.” They openly admit that church is all about “the gospel.” One pastor told me that they cancelled children’s church so that the children would be in adult church and therefore, “under the gospel.”
Rather than a less formal, less structured fellowship that equips and encourages, life is imparted by a ceremony. Consider the following statement by Neo-Calvinist Michael Horton:
God gathers his people together in a covenantal event to judge and to justify, to kill and to make alive. The emphasis is on God’s work for us – the Father’s gracious plan, the Son’s saving life, death, and resurrection, and the Spirit’s work of bringing life to the valley of dry bones through the proclamation of Christ. The preaching focuses on God’s work in the history of redemption from Genesis through Revelation, and sinners are swept into this unfolding drama. Trained and ordained to mine the riches of Scripture for the benefit of God’s people, ministers try to push their own agendas, opinions, and personalities to the background so that God’s Word will be clearly proclaimed. In this preaching the people once again are simply receivers – recipients of grace. Similarly, in baptism, they do not baptize themselves; they are baptized. In the Lord’s Supper, they do not prepare and cook the meal; they do not contribute to the fare; but they are guests who simply enjoy the bread of heaven. As this gospel creates, deepens, and inflames faith, a profound sense of praise and thanksgiving fills hearts, leading to good works among the saints and in the world throughout the week. Having been served by God in the public assembly, the people are then servants of each other and their neighbors in the world.
It’s like trying to obtain a deeper marriage by revisiting the original ceremony, instead of sharing the experience of obeying God’s word in real life:
The image of much contemporary Christianity could be summarized as holy people coming regularly to a holy place on a holy day at a holy hour to participate in a holy ritual led by a holy man dressed in holy cloths for a holy fee (Preface p.11).
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch.
LikeLike
This post is quite interesting, Paul. Haven’t thought about the distinction between a wedding ceremony & married life. And how it highlights the distinction between church service at church & Christian life.
It does seem strange, doesn’t it? To put the emphasis on the wedding ceremony & not the marriage. The symbolic ceremony vs. the life. If couples are taught to place their emphasis on the ceremony & not as much on the rest of their life together, then the marriage is vulnerable to fail.
Do religious leaders focus on the church ceremony & not life itself? Is that one reason why the flock strays & is ill prepared in life? And is that the fault of the flock or the leader?
LikeLike
“Do religious leaders focus on the church ceremony & not life itself? Is that one reason why the flock strays & is ill prepared in life?” YES.
LikeLike
It’s not total depravity that causes the sheep to stray, the foundation to sink. Total depravity doesn’t make the bride unprepared for the groom.
Hmmm. The problem? It’s the milk of ceremony that’s given over & over. Meat is not provided on how to live life. But the ceremony is promoted as the real life. When the rain falls, sheep are left cold, hungry & looking for higher ground. It can be a rude awakening.
Typical gathering has been mostly for the ceremony/symbol INSTEAD of rightly gathering for substance/life.
LikeLike
Yes, “church” is for sanctification. Traditionally, Protestants make it about “the gospel.” Read Horton’e statement carefully; everything we do flows from the weekly celebration. It’s glorified Eastern mysticism.
LikeLike
“Traditionally, Protestants make it about “the gospel.” ”
“The gospel” is defined so narrowly into Jesus’ actual death at the cross & as the lamb who was slain for our sin in our place. And that’s all it can be, or else their entire theology falls apart. And what else does anyone know about God as a result? Tragic.
The gospel starts with God’s creation of us & desire to commune with us. And includes Jesus’ life & resurrection, not just the cross/crucifiction itself.
They just can’t teach anything else. How can they even talk about Lazarus being raised from the dead & the fact that Jesus wept over Lazarus’ death? How does that begin to make sense if God predestined everything & everyone? Did Jesus have compassion & honest feelings or was it fake & for show?
I’m sure there are a ton of examples throughout Jesus’ life that contradict a controlling puppet-master God. Here’s another one just off the top of my head. The woman who touched Jesus’ clothing. Jesus responds with, “Who touched me?”. Was Jesus lying? It was her faith or was she just a puppet? Hmmm. You don’t want the pew-sitter to start thinking about free-will… Isn’t that a kick in the pants to get off the couch & into living & striving out our lives in glorious freedom? Now that is an easy yoke & light burden, right?
I say they know they can’t talk about anything but what they’ve narrowly defined the gospel to – salvation. They do it to protect their theology, not because it is their theology. The gospel as salvation is a wall around “God is in complete control” theology. It’s just a strategy, because their theology itself, the house of cards, will fall apart.
The debate with leaders about predefined gospel in salvation fused with sanctification technicalities is useful. For the average pew-sitter, it may be useful to talk about what Jesus said & did while he was alive & debate that. 🙂 Now that’s something the milk-fed gospel as salvation only pew-sitter can ponder without falling asleep (unfortunately, that’s what happens on a milk diet). And where we don’t get into endless loops on proof-texting their leader’s cherry-picked Bible verses.
Put it this way, I’ve never read on a blog or watched a video or debate where a pro-fater (one who’s religion is fate/election) brings up or is interested in talking about the details of Jesus’ actions & life. It’s basically throwing out single verses & saying they mean what they say they mean.
LikeLike
“Meat is not provided on how to live life.”
Not even sure we need meat. We have it at our fingertips. We need “practice”. I can remember studying 1 John and realizing that “walking in the light” was an analogy back them for “practicing righteousness”. No one ever talks about that anymore. Practical application of law, truth, etc. Well, I take that back. NT Wright has addressed it a few times. He talks about “practicing Christian virtue”.
Funny how the REformed say it cannot be done or if it is your heart is wicked while practicing virtue! You cannot win, you worm!
LikeLike
All in all, the endgame is anomia. That’s how it all started, and it will all end with the “man of anomia.” Calvinism is just another anomia doctrine that will predicate the end time religion. “Because of ‘anomia’ the hearts of many will grow COLD.” Anomia is a major last days theme.
LikeLike