Hitting the Old Brick Wall in Theology: Instrumentality

[Truthstalker]

There are some things that are simply beyond human comprehension. Of those things, some of them are revealed to us (for the moment pass on how) and others are hinted at. We use logic to arrive at conclusions concerning some of these things. Some of the concepts are so big and so wild and so high that we get a chunk of the concept, and then we use that chunk to beat each other over the head.

That’s nice, that’s history, that’s a valid observation. Someone will come along and hit me over the head with another chunk.

There’s a hair-splitting in theology on repeated issues, a differentiation that I am currently arguing both must be observed and cannot be determined. It seems to be everywhere, in every doctrine and involved in every declaration. One form of it concerns instrumentality. For example, we say Jesus saves us. Everybody nods their heads (ok, just the Christians). Then we go on to say that we are saved through Jesus and we say we are saved through the church. But the first “through” is Jesus as the iinstrument of salvation in a far different sense than the second “through”, yet I think we make the mistake of equating the two, and the distinction is important but is often not made. We are saved through Jesus but Jesus came through Mary, so salvation came through Mary. All the power in both senses is with Jesus, with both the Church and Mary they are both powerless because all the power, really, is God’s and they have none on their own. In this I find, I think, a weird agreement between ardently Marian Catholics and ardently anti-Catholic Protestants, a scenario in which some anti-Catholic arrives in heaven, and the first thing he does is marches up to Mary and says in a loud rebuking voice, “All the glory goes to Jesus Christ!” and Mary replies, “I wouldn’t have it any other way.”

Stephen_C asked me if I agree with what the Church says about itself. That got me thinking about ecclesiology, and my conclusion is that, really, the Church does not exist. It has no independent existence apart from God, no power, no boast, only weakness. Only when it is weak is it strong, because only then does it rely on the power of God, only when it is empty can it be full of the power of God and a conduit of grace, and only when it does not exist can it exist, because God called it into existence and its existence cannot be separate from the will and mind of God. Only when it wanders off from that does it take on a life of its own, and that is always a disaster.

The church makes a lot of claims about itself. It claims to be an instrument of grace. That is as dangerous as a beautiful woman becoming aware of her beauty. When she was unaware of it, there was one kind of beauty, a beauty of innocence. When she became aware of it, she began to guard it and become proud, and there needed to be a second kind of beauty, a beauty of spirit, to arise to overcome the coveting and the pride about the beauty. The Church claims to be beautiful, while ugly, and full of grace, while legalistic, yet it is only really beautiful when it sees its ugliness and full of grace when aware of its legalism. It is, perhaps, at its best as an instrument of the will of God then not when it is unaware that it is one, but when there is a beauty of spirit and humility that overcomes the coveting and pride.

And so I look at that, and I realize that it becomes aware that it has a beauty of the spirit and a humility, and so a third level must arise, lest these be corrupted, and then a fourth, and so an infinite series, of covering levels, all to maintain the innocence and the instrumentality of the church. So that it can be nothing, there must be an infinite energy at work, so that it can be something.

It doesn’t matter what the Church says about itself. What matters is what God says about the Church. And there is a brick wall if the only instrument we have to tell what God says is the Church, for the above reasons.

 

[Ghosty]

I recommend you read this article by a very intelligent, up-and-coming Dominican theologian (and priest at my parish). It’s about the instrumentality of the Sacraments as regards Grace, and how the Sacraments are indeed immediate causes of Grace while still being instrumental. This is specifically about the Sacraments, but it pertains to the Church as well in the context you are speaking of.

More specific to your dillema is that you are confusing the Church with its parts, which is an understandable but gravely erroneous perspective. The Church is the very Body of Christ, and therefore IS Holiness Incarnate; to call the Church per se “ugly” is to blaspheme God. Only when you understand and properly distinguish between the Church in essence, and the Church as regards its accidental components, can you begin to understand the Church’s claims about itself.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Stephen_C]

Man those are a lot of words. But I think what it boils down to is somehow its all got to fall out of your brain, and slip into your heart. It is call faith. (Not to be confused with blind faith) Now I am no theologian or an apologist. But I know my faith. I know what I believe. I also have a hard time expressing my views, thoughts, and beliefs with the written word. But I am drawn to this forum. I do not know why, but I feel the spirit has impressed on my heart that I should be here. So here I am. I have been on both sides of the Tiber. I was raised Catholic and drifted away in my early 20’s. I was Southern Baptist for about 15 years. Was happy there until we had a guest speaker during Sunday service. He was preaching about the Catholic Church cult and the evils of worshiping mary. That just did not sit right with me, and I walked out. and never looked back. That was 11 years ago. I thought I could do it alone. I thought I did not need any organized church. I thought it could be just Jesus and me. But that is not what happened…I am not going to go over my reversion back to the Catholic Church but I would say it was not easy. I had to admit I was no longer in control or could do it on my own. Sometimes we have to become broken before we can be fixed. Now I said all of the above just to say this one thing. No matter how much we study. No matter how well we can defend our beliefs. No matter how well we can articulate our thoughts…it is only by having the faith of a child, that all that stuff which we have in our heads can spill into our hearts.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Sometimes we have to become broken before we can be fixed. Now I said all of the above just to say this one thing. No matter how much we study. No matter how well we can defend our beliefs. No matter how well we can articulate our thoughts…it is only by having the faith of a child, that all that stuff which we have in our heads can spill into our hearts.

I agre 100% AMEN
The rest of your post was great also.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

There are some things that are simply beyond human comprehension. Of those things, some of them are revealed to us (for the moment pass on how) and others are hinted at. We use logic to arrive at conclusions concerning some of these things. Some of the concepts are so big and so wild and so high that we get a chunk of the concept, and then we use that chunk to beat each other over the head.

That’s nice, that’s history, that’s a valid observation. Someone will come along and hit me over the head with another chunk.

There’s a hair-splitting in theology on repeated issues, a differentiation that I am currently arguing both must be observed and cannot be determined. It seems to be everywhere, in every doctrine and involved in every declaration. One form of it concerns instrumentality. For example, we say Jesus saves us. Everybody nods their heads (ok, just the Christians). Then we go on to say that we are saved through Jesus and we say we are saved through the church. But the first “through” is Jesus as the iinstrument of salvation in a far different sense than the second “through”, yet I think we make the mistake of equating the two, and the distinction is important but is often not made. We are saved through Jesus but Jesus came through Mary, so salvation came through Mary. All the power in both senses is with Jesus, with both the Church and Mary they are both powerless because all the power, really, is God’s and they have none on their own. In this I find, I think, a weird agreement between ardently Marian Catholics and ardently anti-Catholic Protestants, a scenario in which some anti-Catholic arrives in heaven, and the first thing he does is marches up to Mary and says in a loud rebuking voice, “All the glory goes to Jesus Christ!” and Mary replies, “I wouldn’t have it any other way.”

Stephen_C asked me if I agree with what the Church says about itself. That got me thinking about ecclesiology, and my conclusion is that, really, the Church does not exist. It has no independent existence apart from God, no power, no boast, only weakness. Only when it is weak is it strong, because only then does it rely on the power of God, only when it is empty can it be full of the power of God and a conduit of grace, and only when it does not exist can it exist, because God called it into existence and its existence cannot be separate from the will and mind of God. Only when it wanders off from that does it take on a life of its own, and that is always a disaster.

The church makes a lot of claims about itself. It claims to be an instrument of grace. That is as dangerous as a beautiful woman becoming aware of her beauty. When she was unaware of it, there was one kind of beauty, a beauty of innocence. When she became aware of it, she began to guard it and become proud, and there needed to be a second kind of beauty, a beauty of spirit, to arise to overcome the coveting and the pride about the beauty. The Church claims to be beautiful, while ugly, and full of grace, while legalistic, yet it is only really beautiful when it sees its ugliness and full of grace when aware of its legalism. It is, perhaps, at its best as an instrument of the will of God then not when it is unaware that it is one, but when there is a beauty of spirit and humility that overcomes the coveting and pride.

And so I look at that, and I realize that it becomes aware that it has a beauty of the spirit and a humility, and so a third level must arise, lest these be corrupted, and then a fourth, and so an infinite series, of covering levels, all to maintain the innocence and the instrumentality of the church. So that it can be nothing, there must be an infinite energy at work, so that it can be something.

It doesn’t matter what the Church says about itself. What matters is what God says about the Church. And there is a brick wall if the only instrument we have to tell what God says is the Church, for the above reasons.

Hi,
Interesting point I had never thought of it this way. I think I agree.

 

[Truthstalker]

I recommend you read this article by a very intelligent, up-and-coming Dominican theologian (and priest at my parish). It’s about the instrumentality of the Sacraments as regards Grace, and how the Sacraments are indeed immediate causes of Grace while still being instrumental. This is specifically about the Sacraments, but it pertains to the Church as well in the context you are speaking of.

More specific to your dillema is that you are confusing the Church with its parts, which is an understandable but gravely erroneous perspective. The Church is the very Body of Christ, and therefore IS Holiness Incarnate; to call the Church per se “ugly” is to blaspheme God. Only when you understand and properly distinguish between the Church in essence, and the Church as regards its accidental components, can you begin to understand the Church’s claims about itself.

Peace and God bless!

I did my first read-through of the article. Very, very interesting!
I’ll probably have some comments later. This article connects some dots for me that wander through a number of the threads I have. Thanks much.

The Church as the Church is not ugly.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

There are some things that are simply beyond human comprehension. Of those things, some of them are revealed to us (for the moment pass on how) and others are hinted at. We use logic to arrive at conclusions concerning some of these things. Some of the concepts are so big and so wild and so high that we get a chunk of the concept, and then we use that chunk to beat each other over the head.

That’s nice, that’s history, that’s a valid observation. Someone will come along and hit me over the head with another chunk.

There’s a hair-splitting in theology on repeated issues, a differentiation that I am currently arguing both must be observed and cannot be determined. It seems to be everywhere, in every doctrine and involved in every declaration. One form of it concerns instrumentality. For example, we say Jesus saves us. Everybody nods their heads (ok, just the Christians). Then we go on to say that we are saved through Jesus and we say we are saved through the church. But the first “through” is Jesus as the iinstrument of salvation in a far different sense than the second “through”, yet I think we make the mistake of equating the two, and the distinction is important but is often not made. We are saved through Jesus but Jesus came through Mary, so salvation came through Mary. All the power in both senses is with Jesus, with both the Church and Mary they are both powerless because all the power, really, is God’s and they have none on their own. In this I find, I think, a weird agreement between ardently Marian Catholics and ardently anti-Catholic Protestants, a scenario in which some anti-Catholic arrives in heaven, and the first thing he does is marches up to Mary and says in a loud rebuking voice, “All the glory goes to Jesus Christ!” and Mary replies, “I wouldn’t have it any other way.”

Stephen_C asked me if I agree with what the Church says about itself. That got me thinking about ecclesiology, and my conclusion is that, really, the Church does not exist. It has no independent existence apart from God, no power, no boast, only weakness. Only when it is weak is it strong, because only then does it rely on the power of God, only when it is empty can it be full of the power of God and a conduit of grace, and only when it does not exist can it exist, because God called it into existence and its existence cannot be separate from the will and mind of God. Only when it wanders off from that does it take on a life of its own, and that is always a disaster.

The church makes a lot of claims about itself. It claims to be an instrument of grace. That is as dangerous as a beautiful woman becoming aware of her beauty. When she was unaware of it, there was one kind of beauty, a beauty of innocence. When she became aware of it, she began to guard it and become proud, and there needed to be a second kind of beauty, a beauty of spirit, to arise to overcome the coveting and the pride about the beauty. The Church claims to be beautiful, while ugly, and full of grace, while legalistic, yet it is only really beautiful when it sees its ugliness and full of grace when aware of its legalism. It is, perhaps, at its best as an instrument of the will of God then not when it is unaware that it is one, but when there is a beauty of spirit and humility that overcomes the coveting and pride.

And so I look at that, and I realize that it becomes aware that it has a beauty of the spirit and a humility, and so a third level must arise, lest these be corrupted, and then a fourth, and so an infinite series, of covering levels, all to maintain the innocence and the instrumentality of the church. So that it can be nothing, there must be an infinite energy at work, so that it can be something.

It doesn’t matter what the Church says about itself. What matters is what God says about the Church. And there is a brick wall if the only instrument we have to tell what God says is the Church, for the above reasons.

##

 

[JaneFrances]

There are some things that are simply beyond human comprehension.

. . .says the Master of Understatement.

That’s nice, that’s history, that’s a valid observation. Someone will come along and hit me over the head with another chunk.

I keep telling you to take shelter. . .

That got me thinking about ecclesiology, and my conclusion is that, really, the Church does not exist. It has no independent existence apart from God, no power, no boast, only weakness. Only when it is weak is it strong, because only then does it rely on the power of God, only when it is empty can it be full of the power of God and a conduit of grace, and only when it does not exist can it exist, because God called it into existence and its existence cannot be separate from the will and mind of God. Only when it wanders off from that does it take on a life of its own, and that is always a disaster.

I appreciate the philosophy here, TS. This is great seminary talk. Nice chatting for theologians and scholars of classical philosophy and such. BUT, the Church DOES exist. God has called it into existence. We are called out. Not independent from God and his will and mind, but because of him.

The church makes a lot of claims about itself. It claims to be an instrument of grace.

Right. And as we all know one can’t make music without an instrumentalist.

That is as dangerous as a beautiful woman becoming aware of her beauty.

Or as dangerous as, say, Luke 1:42-55?

When she was unaware of it, there was one kind of beauty, a beauty of innocence.

To be fair, I think that particular kind of beauty and innocence only existed before the Fall. Since then, our taste of the tree has afforded us knowledge which has made us ever-aware to some degree.

When she became aware of it, she began to guard it and become proud, and there needed to be a second kind of beauty, a beauty of spirit, to arise to overcome the coveting and the pride about the beauty.

This is usually true, however, it is not necessarily true. As we see in the Blessed Mother, awareness does not always beget pride. And the two beauties CAN gracefully co-exist.

The Church claims to be beautiful, while ugly, and full of grace, while legalistic, yet it is only really beautiful when it sees its ugliness and full of grace when aware of its legalism. It is, perhaps, at its best as an instrument of the will of God then not when it is unaware that it is one, but when there is a beauty of spirit and humility that overcomes the coveting and pride.

It could just be my necrotic gut. . .but I think this isn’t wholly true. It would probably take me having to do some reading of Aquinas and St. Teresa of Avila’s Interior Castle to adequately respond, but I think awareness is a gift. I could be wrong. . .but, I don’t think the tree of knowledge was an evil thing. God created it, therefore He create it for some good.

As adults, we realize that there were goods that our parents refused us as children for reasons we could not understand at the time. And despite their goodness, we still knew that they were forbidden. It is only in the disobedience. . .in the lack of submission. . .in the sin that WE made the good thing bad.

Maybe that’s like awareness? Maybe knowing is indeed a gift. Maybe it is a very good gift that we took, rather than recieved, and therefore we use it imperfectly.

And so I look at that, and I realize that it becomes aware that it has a beauty of the spirit and a humility, and so a third level must arise, lest these be corrupted, and then a fourth, and so an infinite series, of covering levels, all to maintain the innocence and the instrumentality of the church.

I don’t know if it’s the covering that helps maintain the innocence and instrumentality. This sounds an awful lot like the dung heap. God is the author of beauty. God is the head of the Church. God is the Creator, not a wall paper hanger. And goodness, I don’t have enough glue for all that myself.

So that it can be nothing, there must be an infinite energy at work, so that it can be something.

No measure of OUR energy can make something God has created nothing.

It doesn’t matter what the Church says about itself. What matters is what God says about the Church.

But I would add that it does matter that we hear what He says.

And there is a brick wall if the only instrument we have to tell what God says is the Church, for the above reasons.

Hmmmm. . .are brick walls always bad? I don’t know.

 

[Truthstalker]

At this point I mutter something about the infinite depth of grace, in contrast to my limited reach and sight. Among other things, when grace is given, it is not given meagerly but overflowing, so that, among other things, for example.a beautiful woman is given the grace not only of the initial level, but to handle the self-awareness on all levels cited.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Is it possible that as a Presbytyrian you may not be so happy being “churched,” but that as a Catholic you might be happier? Catholics don’t usually think of their Church as an obstacle to finding God unless they are on the way out of the Church. And the ones who do leave, more often than not do return having found that “Church” is not the same for Protestants as it is for Catholics.

 

[Truthstalker]

Is it possible that as a Presbytyrian you may not be so happy being “churched,” but that as a Catholic you might be happier? Catholics don’t usually think of their Church as an obstacle to finding God unless they are on the way out of the Church. And the ones who do leave, more often than not do return having found that “Church” is not the same for Protestants as it is for Catholics.

I really, really, really like my Presbyterian Church. If I left it wouldn’t be because of anything wrong. There are a lot of strengths I haven’t seen in the Catholic Church in our little church; I would be leaving for something I would have to consider so much better that I would be willing to give up a lot.
Among those things, if you are wondering, are pastors who aren’t sold out to liberalism, excellent preaching, a high level of Biblical literacy in the congregation, vibrant adult education, a high proportion of committed members who are active in the church and lead lives of exemplary holiness, responsiveness of the clergy, a good small group system and youth group, for starters. Some of these things are probably able to be found in the Catholic Church. Not around here.

Define “Church”.

 

[mark_a]

chunk

equals how enemies fight.

hair-splitting

Equals how people fight when they don’t realize they are actually pals

the Church does not exist. It has no independent existence apart from God, no power, no boast, only weakness. Only when it is weak is it strong, because only then does it rely on the power of God, only when it is empty can it be full of the power of God and a conduit of grace, and only when it does not exist can it exist, because God called it into existence and its existence cannot be separate from the will and mind of God. Only when it wanders off from that does it take on a life of its own, and that is always a disaster.

The church makes a lot of claims about itself. It claims to be an instrument of grace. That is as dangerous as a beautiful woman becoming aware of her beauty. When she was unaware of it, there was one kind of beauty, a beauty of innocence. When she became aware of it, she began to guard it and become proud, and there needed to be a second kind of beauty, a beauty of spirit, to arise to overcome the coveting and the pride about the beauty. The Church claims to be beautiful, while ugly, and full of grace, while legalistic, yet it is only really beautiful when it sees its ugliness and full of grace when aware of its legalism. It is, perhaps, at its best as an instrument of the will of God then not when it is unaware that it is one, but when there is a beauty of spirit and humility that overcomes the coveting and pride.

And so I look at that, and I realize that it becomes aware that it has a beauty of the spirit and a humility, and so a third level must arise, lest these be corrupted, and then a fourth, and so an infinite series, of covering levels, all to maintain the innocence and the instrumentality of the church. So that it can be nothing, there must be an infinite energy at work, so that it can be something.

It doesn’t matter what the Church says about itself. What matters is what God says about the Church. And there is a brick wall if the only instrument we have to tell what God says is the Church, for the above reasons.

Shazam!!