Augustine in The City of God writes:
Scripture tells us that Cain founded a city, whereas Abel, as a pilgrim, did not found one. For the City of the saints is up above, although it produces citizens here below, and in their persons the City is on pilgrimage until the time of its kingdom comes. At the time it will assemble all those citizens as they rise again in their bodies; and they will be given the promised kingdom, where with their Prince, ‘the king of ages’, they will reign, world without end. (XV.1)
The church is an eschatologically gathered polis, in other words. In the book of Acts, the scattering of the disciples - because of persecution - is the impetus for mission. It parallels the scattering of the peoples in the early chapters of Genesis. In this way, the church ought not to exalt in its earthly structures as if these are in some way more than replicas or shadows of the eschatological reality in which it really has its existence. The church ought not to seek to foreshorten the eschatological gap between present experience and the promise that lies ahead. It ought not to proclaim the end of its pilgrimage, or that in coming to one place on the globe it has finally arrived at its destination, its promised land, its Jerusalem. It ought not to imagine that whatever unity it can construct here on earth is the definitive eschatological unity that will one day be realised. In fact, the organisational unity of churches may be a hinderance to the real unity and fellowship of Christians.
Admittedly, Augustine may not have taken this thought in this direction. For him, the impressive historical reality and success of the church was a very strong apologetic for its message...
15 comments:
Augustine also has the first historical mention of flatulists:
"such command of their bowels, that they can break wind continuously at will, so as to produce the effect of singing."
(14.24)
Michael, I'm sure your former supervisor would be most pleased with the first part of your post, and a little anxious about the later part.
I wonder if you get the matter quite right. Surely the church's unity here and now does mirror the eschatological unity of the multitude of all peoples. The temptation is not about unity, but about political existence. The church, as the mirror of unified eschatological humanity, cannot yet achieve this as a social and political reality. But perhaps organizational unity can aid the church in showing the world the future of human sciality.
not 'the church': the 'churches'...
The organisational unity of the papacy (to cite but one example) has proved bestial at many times in its history...Isn't that kind of unity precisely a temptation to a power that pretty much resembles Babel?
I REALLY REALLY liked this. It also manifested my prejudice against Augustine as a neo-platonic theologian. He seem to come really close (but not quite the same) to the "Robinson-Knox thesis", though via a different route.
I also agree. The unity that christians must display for the world should surely be seen on a local level, and it isn't neccesarily imperative for it to exist on a massive scale (and also, it seems more than a little utopic).
Michael I think I accept the second-last paragraph of your initial post, provided it's qualified by the last one.
It's one thing to say that organisational unity is not the be-all-and-end-all, and that unity (say) with Rome as currently constituted would be counter-productive (if not absurd). But the multiplicity of protestant church organisations is still uncomfortable, and the history of animus between them downright embarrassing ...
I agree with what you say about the papacy: it can, I'm sure, be a temptation (although that doesn't necessarily mean it will always be a bad idea.
I also agree with Bruce about the embarrassment of protestant disunity. It's all very well to say we have unity in the Spirit, but if there aren't even attempts made to express that unity, it can feel a bit lip-service-ish.
Ahh, we should get over our embarassment!
And we can express the unity by actual co-operation of actual people rather than by bishops producing more pieces of paper.
...but which actual people and what actual things? I agree its the right thing to do, but I think there is something in Bruce Yabsley's point: its kind of a PR disaster and allows a shallow dismissiveness "they preach peace but they can't even get on with each other". So I think that your reference to "actual cooperation" rather than pieces of paper should not be a justification for inaction, it would require some positive actions to show the world at large we have a shared message of love: there is a case to be made...
There are many ways in which we do seek to proleptically anticipate the eschaton (while avoiding a utopic collapse into an overrealised claim to perfection); why exclude organisational unity from this? Sure there may be situations in which organisational unity of churches may be a hinderance to local unity of Christians, but wouldn't it be somewhat surprising if this were to be the rule rather than the exception?
Well, fair 'nuff. Depends what you mean by unity. My more Catholic Anglican friends are distressed that the Anglican church can't just use some kind of muscle against the revisionist liberals. I think they should just be honest and leave, because they believe in a different gospel. Unity of that kind isn't worth having. You send a message by what you are willing to tolerate - or not.
On this, have you read O'Donovan's Fulcrum lectures, esp. sermon 3 on agreement?
Of course!
use some kind of muscle
Doesn't it all depend what kind of muscle? Are there any forms of (at least metaphorical) muscle that are ok?
I assume you've seen Kim's latest list of ten propositions on ecumenism?
hmm. Muscle. Well, I guess persuasion and then excommunication. In a sense, the Anglican Communion has done this quite well - we should be less ashamed of this whole process perhaps!
I have seen Kim's latest list: I don't agree with them much, I have to say!
Post a Comment