My apologies. This was posted on the mission weblog.
Perhaps I am too skeptical, but I had a difficult time with Reno's assessment that the church is in ruins. I'm not sure that I agree with that, but even if what he says is true, how is the church so different now than in years past? Hasn't the church always struggled with its identity in the midst of the world? Is Reno really calling for something new, original?
He asserts that people are genuinely afraid of the church and its authority (p.36). He goes on to says that, "the horror of dependence and the fear of difference more adequately explain important modern criticisms of Christian teaching..." (p.57). Further, "Chrisitianity is not too incredible; it is too dangerous" (p.57).
I think that Reno is right in pointing out that this is clearly a question of authority; however, I do not think that fear is a reality for most people in regard to the church. I question whether the church is largely even a consideration. There are more people outside the realm of the church than inside the church. The church is largely invisible. Darby says that and Reno concurs. "The church is in a state of ruin, immersed and buried in the world--invisible, if you will have it so; whilst it ought to be held forth, as a candlestick, the light of God" (p.16). I agree that "an invisible church is a failed church" (p.16).
Reno says that people are afraid of the church and what it represents.
I am hesitant to agree with him. I think that rather than fear, it is precisely a lack of fear that has caused the situation that the church finds itself in today. People are fearless in this world of ours where momentary gratification in a smorgasboard world is right at our fingertips. The church has been reduced to a small condiment amidst the vast spread of consumerist entrees.
How can the church reclaim its rightful place? Its authority?
Reno says that we need to "draw near to the memory of the apostles, made sensual in the words of the Scripture, in the ancient liturgies, in the dogmatic and disciplinary traditons of the church" (p. 28).
Okay. How do we do this?
I think he touches on something significant. Perhaps too much emphasis has been placed on the church's need to change when in reality it is we who are in the church that need to change our thinking, attitudes, practices of daily spiritual life. Reno says, "revision should strengthen the anchor of common worship so that we see as clearly as possible that we-- not Christian teaching and practice--must change in order to dwell in the fullness of new life" (p.109).
I think he is right. I still wonder what this looks like? Using Reno's theology, I wonder what a practical theology looks like? Does fear need to be reclaimed as good, not an evil? Doesn't fear serve to heighten moral consciousness? If there are no consequences for our actions then why change?
I'm not advocating an oppressive "fear" that keeps all of us beaten down and cowering, but I do think that there is something significant in reclaiming fear as respectful reverence for the authority of God. What do you think?
Posted by Jeffrey in at 10:55 AM | Comments (0) May 2004