Richard Baxter ~ fellowship with other pastors

THE REFORMED PASTOR: A PATTERN FOR PERSONAL GROWTH AND MINISTRY

By Richard Baxter  (1615 ~ 1691)

Abridged and Edited by James M. Houston

Introduction by Dr. Richard C. Halverson  Chaplain, United States Senate

Part 1 – Chapter 2

The Characteristics of the pastor and our fellowship with other pastors

The Characteristics

·       Purity of motive

·       Diligence and hard work

·       Prudence and efficiency

·       Certainty about basic doctrines

·       Plain and clear teaching

·       Dependence upon God and docility before others

·       Humility

·       A balance between severity and gentleness

·       A zealous and affectionate spirit

·       Reverence

·       A caring love for people

·       Patience

THE NEED FOR UNITY AND FELLOWSHIP AMONG PASTORS

These twelve qualities that we have described are re­quired of pastors as individuals. But it is also necessary for us to be united as fellow laborers in the work of the Lord. We need to seek the social virtues of unity and peace of the churches that we oversee. We need to be concerned for the well being of the whole work of God. We need to strengthen the common cause that we all serve, as well as the welfare of particular members of our flock. That is, we need to have a wider vision for the further enlargement of the Kingdom of Christ.

 As ministers we need, therefore, to hurt when the Church is wounded. Instead of being leaders of schisms, we should lead in the initiatives that prevent divisions and that seek healing. Day and night we should be de­voted to finding ways to close any breaches that may develop. We must not only talk about church unity, but actually seek it and serve in its cause. We should not only look for peace, but we should follow after its pursuits when it flees from us.

        We need to keep close to the ancient simplicity of the original Christian faith, and build our foundation on its original unity. We must abhor the arrogance of those who harass and tear apart the Church of God under the pre­tense of correcting errors and holding to “the Truth.” The sufficiency of Scripture, of course, must be upheld; but do not let others add anything to it.

 We must learn clearly the distinction-between certain­ties and uncertainties, between fundamental issues and speculative theories of explanation. Then we can clearly distinguish the fundamentals of the faith from those that are merely private opinions. The peace of the Church de­pends on the former, not upon the latter.

 We need, therefore, a sound proof of historical theol­ogy to see the ways in which the Church has struggled to maintain the truth. We also need to know the writings of the early fathers so that we may benefit from their clearer teachings and explanations. But none of these is in itself the basic rule of our faith or of our love in God.

 We must also avoid the confusion of those who make no differences between verbal slips of the tongue and fun­damental heresies. How tragic it is that there are those who tear their brothers apart as heretics before they have made any effort to understand them.

 We must learn to understand the basic reasons for con­troversies, and then reduce them to the point where we see the differences between genuine differences instead of just seeing the prejudices. Then we will refrain from mak­ing the differences worse than they really are. Instead of quarreling with our brethren, let us rather cooperate to­gether against our real and common adversaries.

 That is why it is important for ministers to associate and to enjoy friendships, as well as to cultivate corre­spondence. Let us therefore meet constantly to serve this aim of unity. Then we shall find that smaller differences of viewpoint will not interfere with our fellowship together.

 We must do as much of the work of the Lord in unity and harmony as it is possible to do. [Such was the practice of Synods among the Puritans] not to rule over one another, and to make laws, but to avoid misunderstand­ings, and to consult for mutual edification. To maintain love and communion together is what the word of God has commanded us to do.

 If only all the ministers of the Gospel had been men of peace and of a catholic rather than a factious spirit, the Church of Christ would not have been in the situation of division that it is now in. The notions of brethren and the Calvinists abroad, as well as the differing denominations here at home, would not have been plotting the subver­sion of each other. Their ongoing bitterness to each other only strengthens the common enemy. But it hinders the building up and well being of the Church which it should now be experiencing.

END

Eschatological Polity

Eschatological Polity

Peter Leithart

POSTED
October 17, 2022

In an essay on “Eschatology” in the Blackwell Companion to Political Theology, the late Robert Jenson argues that Christian eschatology is “directly and almost exclusively a discourse about politics.”

The coming of the kingdom means that “the eschaton-polity” Israel hoped for, “the universal polity of peace, appeared as a possibility for present citizenship.” After the resurrection, the church embarked on a mission “to bring all into this citizenship.”

The church that results is the “presence of God’s polity,” struggling, tempted and ambiguous to be sure, but still God’s eschatological polity in the present.

Christian eschatology has juxtaposed this political vision of the end with hope for a “beatific vision” and union with God.” Jenson thinks both are true, and in fact they are different dimensions of the same reality.

The eschatological city is the people of God joined to the Son, so that in the end “the second person of the Trinity is eschatologically a communal reality that includes a created community.”

In the present age, this means that “The first political calling of the church, its first way to be a blessing for the polities of this age, is simply to be itself, to be a sign of the eschaton.” To say the same thing again, “the first political calling of the church is to celebrate the Eucharist.”

Summarizing Augustine, Jenson describes the Eucharist as “a public space where the one God gives himself to his community, and where in consequence all sorts and conditions of humanity drink from one cup and eat of one loaf, and whose parliament of common and mutual prayer is a perfect participatory democracy.”

The Eucharist is central because “The approximation for this age of the kingdom’s mutuality is the Eucharist. Therefore it provides the true ideal of political striving. . . . All classes and races drink from the one cup and eat the one bread, and so share equally in the good that gathers the church.”

Jenson is aware that “social justice” is a battle cry of heresy, but “its origin is deep in the life of the church,” in the common feast of the Supper.

The Eucharistic city isn’t an egalitarian polity: “the Eucharist does know a hierarchy, of celebrant and people and of various ministries to both.” But since God is the Good shared by the people, “the hierarchy within it does not impede the mutuality of the discourse, or establish an oligarchy or even a merely representative democracy.”

And this eschatological/Eucharistic vision forms our understanding of worldly politics: “The citizens of the eucharistic polity know that differences of gifts, even differences of more and less, are not in themselves evil, and are to be cherished in polities of this world also.”