Re: Yes...but no...but yes.

W,

Ideally, yes. Practically . . . too often times, no.

Yours,
L

Re: Yes...but no...but yes.

True enough, Lee. Sadly.

My main struggle is over the words "in the same way that." I do get B's point, and think I may be stressing a kind of technical equivalence that he didn't necessarily mean, if that makes sense.

Re: Yes...but no...but yes.

Well, it cannot be "in the same way." B is just over-stating his case. If it is in the same way, without any distinctions, then we lose a fundamental part of Christology, a part that B would not want to lose. Christ is the presence of God in that he IS God, "very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of the same substance as the Father." We are not the presence of God in that way. I don't think he means that, but when you say "in the same way," you cannot forgot about the way in which we are not the presence of God.

Re: Yes...but no...but yes.

James,

Right. That's my struggle. But perhaps by "in the same way" he means just the general principle that when one wants to know what God "looks" like, he looks at Christ. Similarly, when one wants to know what Christ "looks" like, he should be able to look at the church (as Lee said, "ideally")? But then the church, of course, is, at her best, a pale reflection of Christ, whereas he who has seen Christ has seen the Father.

So here's my struggle: would I myself put it like B has? I think not, for the reasons you state.

But I do want to say something very much like it. So I wonder if somebody would like to take a shot at restating that sentence in a way less open to misunderstanding?

Re: Yes...but no...but yes.

Well, if we take the terminology of "body of Christ" literally and not metaphorically, then yes he is speaking truth. However, as a Baptist his statement is disturbing because it requires me to abandon the metaphorical and adopt an incarnational perspective on the Church. This plays havoc with our zwinglian view of the Church and the ordinances. It requires us to abandon our often landmarkish localism for a catholicism that most Baptists ARE NOT up for.

However, if I really believe the Bible, then I must give his conception serious thought.

Re: Yes...but no...but yes.

No.

Kevin

Re: Yes...but no...but yes.

Kevin,

If you could stop your long, rambling, incoherent, laborious answers, I'd appreciate it.

Get to the point man.

;-)


W

Re: Yes...but no...but yes.

James said pretty much what I was thinking. "B" clearly overstates his point (i.e., "in the same way"), not to mention that fact that "B" is drawing comparison from two natures: nature of God and nature of church. In other words, Christ and God are the "same" or are one in nature thus Christ is a perfect manifestation of God (His nature) whereas though we are in union with Christ we are not one in nature with Christ.

It's 5 minutes before I have to go home. My mind is shutting down. :)

Re: Yes...but no...but yes.

Could read, and thus maybe, Wyman, your interpretation of B is correct: "The Church should strive to pursue representing Christ [or (manifesting Jesus' love, mercy, etc)] as did Jesus represent the Father."

Re: Yes...but no...but yes.

W,

Sorry about the repeat post, Firefox did it to me when I refreshed. I did not repost to make some kind of point. Sorry again.

Re: Yes...but no...but yes.

Y'all,

How can you be sure that DB is overstating his point. He comes from a different tradition. He may mean exactly what he says.

Re: Yes...but no...but yes.

If he does mean exactly what he says, it must flow out of an incarnational understanding of what the Church is. Just like the difference between sacraments and ordinances. Sacraments propose to actually do what they represent, whereas ordinances are purely representational. Symbolic versus operational.

Re: Yes...but no...but yes.

“The church is the presence of Christ in the same way that Christ is the presence of God.”

Yes, the church is the presence of Christ; but no, not in the same way that Christ is the presence of God; but yes, the church is the presence of Christ like Christ is the presence of God. ; )

Bonhoeffer, I believe, is very much thinking of the incarnational presence of Christ through His body, the Church. The German theologue understood that Christians are related to each other, in community, because of Christ; and that the true path to authentic relationship with others is only through Christ. Christians need each other to receive (and proclaim) God's Word, and the world needs the Church for the proclamation of the gospel to all. Bonhoeffer generally distinguishes between the Church as an ideal and as a divine reality. He argues the Church is not simply the result of humanity's desires or deeds, but the creation of God through Christ. This creation results in the praise and thanksgiving for redemption, fellowship, and providence. The Body of Christ is more than an association of individuals who share a common purpose, it is a fellowship of those united by the love of Christ. This love emanates from Christ and goes through an individual out to another individual, not directly, but through Christ. Christ stands between us and others as we act, speak, pray, etc. As long as the Church does not become a society or movement, but remains the fellowship of the one, holy, catholic Church, the presence of Christ is manifested.

I think I have summarized Bonhoeffer fairly.

Re: Yes...but no...but yes.

I appreciate all the comments.

AT, I was going to tell you that I don't think Bonhoeffer had the sacraments in mind in this, but I stand corrected, as I'll show below.

James, thanks for the very helpful comments brother. Very insightful.

Here is a wider context for the comment which should help. (BTW, all of this is in one of B's footnotes.)

"The social significance of Christ is decisive - Christ who is present only in the church, that is, where the Christian church-community is united by preaching and the Lord's Supper in mutual Christian love. The real presence of Christ also is decisive. The problem of this relation of the scripture and preaching to this real presence is only hinted at in Paul. The sole content of the church is in any case God's revelation in Christ. Christ is present to the church in his word, by which it is constituted every anew. The church is presence of Christ in the same way that Christ is the presence of God.
The doctrinal difficulties involved here must be discussed later. One must not think of a second incarnation of Christ...but rather of a form of revelation that may be called 'Christ existing as church-community'. Only if this is understood can one comprehend how Paul can say in the indicative: "You are the body of Christ."

Perhaps this helps.

Wyman

Re: Yes...but no...but yes.

I saw your comment over at Ben Witherington's blog. You really get around.

Re: Yes...but no...but yes.

Eugene,

You gotta love BWIII!

BTW, Eugene, you must read Everett Ferguson's new book, Baptism in the Early Church. I know I've mentioned it before. It has its flaws - mainly a heavy emphasis on baptismal regeneration. But it's an amazing and compelling piece of historical scholarship that I think you will find very interesting.

W

Re: Yes...but no...but yes.

The first comment was made by Lee Herring...and I agree with him. Ditto, Herring!

Re: Yes...but no...but yes.

If I may jump into this dialog of theologians and pastors, then I would say that my very first thought was of my pastor and his wife. When I see her alone, I naturally think of my pastor. When I see my pastor alone, I naturally think of her as well. To see either, is to be reminded of both. The mystical union of the body of Christ, as His bride, just speaks of a future day when reality and sight will be one and the same. Until that great day of the marriage supper of the Lamb of God, we see Him in Her and we think of Her in Him when we look with our hearts at our concept of God as I understand it. So, in a very real spiritual sense, to see the bride is to see the other half (the bridegroom). So there is a great mystery here that the veil of mortal life keeps us gazing through a glass darkly but one day we will know as we are known so that the idea of "the presense of Christ" and "the presense of God" will not only be meaningless but completely unnecessary. In the mean time it may very well affect all of our corporate relationships in the local church to recognize "the presense of Christ" in others. Reverence and agape love cannot really thrive and grow without this "supernatural sense" in a sense driven world that we occupy now. When we are in "the presense" of someone else we are "with them" physically in that moment. When they leave, their "presense" goes too. No so with God and this may be at the root of why we might say NO. There are no perfect marriages or couples although "the two shall be as one" in this life. I don't think our nature can really grasp a perfected union like Christ and the Bride. It is a perfect union and one day perfection will become sight. So, in summary, I would tend to agree with Dietrich.
Our imperfect state in a fallen world may color all our ideas in this arena. The "in the same way" to me is just one of numerous expressions that might communicate the idea of "like" or "similar" , etc. This is an area of biblical truth where language is is often very inadequate to express the "ultimate reality" and so we have to live with imperfect means of expression and even metaphor or parable to get at the central point. I say, YES!
When the Bride is presented without spot or wringle or blemish, then we will understand fully. Until then, we see the spots, wrinkles and blemishes (Eph. 5: 27). One might gaze upon and marvel at the words of Our Lord in His prayer, John 17:20-26. Those who are inclined to say NO to Dietrichs statement are going to really have to wrestle with the Prayer of Christ which seems to indicate not only a sharing of glory but of essense. Holy presense in cracked pots complete with spots, wrinkles and blemishes. Sincerely cracked, Johboy

Re: Yes...but no...but yes.

Dave,

As a general rule in life, I say: If Lee Herring believes it, probably I should too! ;-) (Lee, I knew you'd love that.)

John,

Great thoughts. I think theological clarity must increase the closer one gets to Iowa.

Wyman