in the body and as the reality of the individual member, or are such actions reflective of a kind of liberty that is foreign to a fuller understanding of exactly what constitutes graced freedom in the ekklēsia as the body of Christ?
We will argue that there is, at present and in the contemporary church/Church, a greater sense of liberty than there is manifestation and expression of graced freedom. Such liberty is evident as an imprecise understanding of why the church/Church exists, how she is to approach decision making at every level, from whence she derives her purpose for existence, under whose authority she continues to exist as an event of free obedience, and what is, de facto, the exact nature of the message she is called, established, and commissioned to proclaim, and exactly why graced freedom is essential to the church/Church as ekklēsia, that is, as event, not merely as an institution or local organizational structure.
Are these mere generalizations that have no bearing on the day-to-day realities of the contemporary church/Church? We presume that there will be those who will think so; but we doubt that such contention will come from any pastor who, like the author of this essay, has devoted more than thirty years of life to the church/Church, and has witnessed a slow but evident diminishment of the centrality of this body as ekklēsia, together with significant and irregular changes in the body of believers over the last three decades. The concepts of a culture enamored with the ideology of self-directive free will, with individualization, relativism, pluralism, and with a growing indifference toward all claims to authority and indisputable truth claims, has not stopped short at entrance to the doors of the church/Church and her membership.
Even the leadership of the church/Church is not reluctant to employ and apply the mechanisms of culture, society, and business to the decision-making processes and planning of particular ministries in the life of the church/Church. And while such phenomena disclose a certain acculturation of the church/Church, the larger concern of this essay is to demonstrate those ways in which this also discloses a fascination with and conviction regarding the supreme value of liberty to the whole of church/Church in every aspect of her life, rather than an embrace of graced freedom as essential to the event of ekklēsia.
Furthermore, there is another manifestation of liberty evident in the church/Church—and in particular in the United States—that is equally disturbing, only because it has proven, as a misconception, to wreck havoc on the order (technically, the polity) of the local congregation and its essential associations with the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic ekklēsia. We refer to the way in which a democratic ideology has taken hold of the mind-set of many if not most of the members of the church/Church—and that, regardless of confessional position!
This phenomenon is most glaringly evident in Roman Catholic church/Church in North America, where each individual deems it appropriate to express his or her individuality, as liberty, in what should be (so they believe) a democratically administered organization (that is to say—the Church), as is any other similar voluntary organization in this nation. The voices of authority, the voice of Bishop, Magisterium, or Pope, whenever perceived to be in direct conflict with the rights of individual expression of liberty (and therefore undemocratic) are opposed with all the rigor one expects to witness in rebellion against a tyrannical oppressor; and it is troubling to hear members of Roman Catholic congregations refer to the authority of the Church in just such accusatory language. However, those who belong to any one of a number of Protestant churches can take no satisfaction in pointing an accusing finger at their Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, as this phenomenon is by no means restricted to the Roman Catholic churches; it can be discovered in almost any form of Christian church/Church and confessional body. While this may well be an expression of liberty as understood in a constitutional framework, it is far from that graced freedom which is the hallmark of the ekklēsia, genuine Christian discipleship, service to Christ through free obedience to Christ and his gospel, and serves as the heart and soul of an evangelical theology of freedom for humanity.
While we will address the following in greater detail in a later chapter, for now let us note how the apostle Paul writes, “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Cor. 3:17). Not liberty, which is not to be found in the New Testament (with the possible exception of the derivatives, liberator/liberation), but freedom (Gk. eleutheria, et.al.)4 and of a very particular kind!5 This essay is an attempt to re-educate the church/Church in what is, perhaps, one of her most sterling characteristics in Christ—her graced freedom for obedience to God and in service to humanity as the unique characteristic of her being as ekklēsia. So that there can be no mistake or misunderstanding from the beginning, we evidently refer to that graced freedom revealed in all its fullness (i.e., pleroma) in Jesus Christ—ontologically and as redemptive event, and subsequently and by virtue of his gracious conferral of the Holy Spirit, in its fullness (pleroma) of the ekklēsia as well—ontologically and as event.
It could be rightly said that this proposal is Christological ecclesiology; and yet it would be equally appropriate to the argument of this essay to affirm that it is also and at the same time ecclesiological Christology. There will be no apology (in the theological sense of the word) made for this in the body of the essay as the essay itself is an attempt at such an apologetic; we believe that what the contemporary church/Church needs most at present is the reclamation and reaffirmation of the fact that she has no reality other than that which is conferred upon her by the living Lord Christ; Christological ecclesiology and ecclesiological Christology, in tandem, are considered essential to such reclamation and reaffirmation. This is not, however, to vacate the incipient ecclesiology in this essay of the presence and important—central!—role of the Holy Spirit in the being, sustenance, and event of the ekklēsia (recall the words of the apostle Paul quoted in the paragraph above); without the presence of the Spirit of Lord there would be no basis for a theology of freedom, and certainly not an evangelical theology of freedom for humanity.
We would also want to be clear that, while we have respect for the variety of what is often called Liberation Theology, we do not see any such theology as truly representative of an evangelical theology of freedom; primarily because of both the presuppositions underlying such theological expositions and exaggerated attention to the externals of the socio-political reality being addressed. In point of fact, we would assert that such theological explications advocate liberty as defined above and not evangelical freedom as an ontological reality. Such theological explanation is to be appreciated for the insights offered into the disposition of the poor and oppressed, the biblical mandate for justice, and the courage of expressed prophetic conviction. One can faithfully read the exodus narrative as a story of liberation from bondage, but such reading tends to undervalue the theological reality; the liberation of the Hebrew people from slavery in Egypt clearly reflected freedom from oppressive socio-political realities, yet the fundamental purpose for their being liberated was in order to establish freedom as the basis for obedience, worship, and service to the living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Nevertheless, we believe that the situation faced by the church/Church in North America is not one that can be addressed along socio-political lines, whether as the presupposition or as a viable proposed direction to resolution. With few exceptions, pastors in a multitude of settings in North America are seldom stunned by the plight of the poor and oppressed in any one of the congregations served or in the conditions of those living in the surrounding communities; most of the members of North American congregations are not struggling under a tyrannical regime, or severely limited by unjust laws, or wondering from where they will receive their next meal. And yet, even where such experience is the case of pastor and people (e.g., in urban centers or poor and economically depressed rural communities), the necessity for a theology of graced freedom is still a vital concern.
The last sentence of the previous paragraph simply highlights the importance of and need for the development of a theology of freedom in the North American context, among members of the church/Church, and as a proclamation of hope and promise to residents and non-believers of the wider community as well. While our culture and society experience
