Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture Archives

Cover image of "Local and Universal" by C. Ryan Fields

Local and Universal: A Free Church Account of Ecclesial Catholicity (Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture), C. Ryan Fields. IVP Academic (ISBN: 9781514006719), 2024.

Summary: A theological exploration of the contribution of churches in the free church, locally governed tradition, to the wider church’s understanding of catholicity.

I am a member of a Brethren Church. I am writing this review after a meeting of our church’s governance team. As a governing body, in consultation with our congregation, we make decisions on everything from building use to the calling of pastors and commending them for ordination. We host food pantries, community gardens and support ministries in collaboration with other churches in our community as well as participate in denominational matters from planting new churches, to supporting mission efforts in other countries and theological training at our seminary.

Given our grassroots up, local character, can it be said that we are in any sense “catholic,” that is, truly a part of the universal church over which Jesus is Lord? Some may contend that while we may be in Christ, we are not catholic, because we are not part of a hierarchy, particularly one that may trace its roots through its succession of bishops back to Peter. C. Ryan Fields, in this book, makes the case that while this may be an aspect, or particular expression of catholicity, it overlooks other expressions of catholicity that may be evident in other bodies and particularly those understood as within the “Free Church” tradition. “Free Church” is defined in the book as including congregational polity, a “low” liturgy, eschewing adherence to creedal statements, valuing individual conscience and religious freedom and insisting on a separation of church and state.

Fields goes about this by first establishing the biblical warrant for the doctrine of catholicity. He then considers the development of this doctrine from apostolic to present times, summarizing this in a ten-fold taxonomy:

Holistic Catholicity: connected to the whole vs. sectarianism
Geographical Catholicity: embracing “all places” vs. provincialism
Missional Catholicity: reaching “all peoples” vs. exclusionism
Chronological Catholicity: commonality through “all times” vs novelty
Orthodox Catholicity: doctrinal faithfulness vs. heresy or apostasy
Institutional Catholicity: visible mediation vs. invisible conceptions and schismatic impulse
Differentiated Catholicity: diverse identity and contribution vs. uniformity
Christological Catholicity: emphasis on Christological connection vs. ecclesial minimalism
Liturgical Catholicity: sacramental continuity vs. ingenuity
Numerical catholicity: greatest adherence vs. minority status

Fields then takes the rest of the book to contrast the Anglican church with the Free Churches. Fields sees Anglicanism fulfilling many aspects of the taxonomy but argues that this may be at the expense of a certain uniformity that fails to express the true unity in a differentiated diversity that also marks catholicity. In the three following chapters, he explores Free Church Catholicity. He starts with its different Reformation expressions: Anabaptist, Puritan, and Baptist. Each of these he sees as characterized not as starting something new but retrieving something ancient that is missing. They revealed a Reformation ecclesiology, interacted with the broader tradition and claimed to preserve catholicity in essentials. He then proceeds in the two following chapters to develop the idea of Free Church catholicity as local catholicity–that where one finds catholicity embodied is in placed, local congregations that express in word and sacrament the diverse, yet united catholicity of the church. Yet this also requires the local body to embrace connectedness to the rest of the body, including other local churches.

This last strikes me as important. Without lived connection, we cannot embody catholicity locally, where it can have meaning for others. At the same time, Fields’ argument affirms not only the possibility of catholicity in the Free Church tradition but also the essential contribution to a robust catholicity these churches (my church among them!). While the Free Church may humbly learn from Anglican, Catholic, and Orthodox believers, they needn’t be ashamed but also come bearing gifts of catholicity, enrich the whole body of Christ.

____________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.

The Paradox of Sonship (Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture), R. B. Jamieson, foreword by Simon J. Gathercole. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2021.

Summary: A discussion of the use of “Son” in Hebrews proposing that it is a paradox, that Jesus is the divine Son who became the messianic “Son” at the climax of his saving mission.

The very first verses of the book of Hebrews present us with a challenge. What does the author mean when he refers to Jesus as “Son”? Verses 1-3 seem to describe one who is the eternal Son, the second person of the Trinity, eternally God with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Yet verse 5, quoting Psalm 2:7 and the parallels in 2 Samuel 7:14; 1 Chron. 17:13 seem to suggest that Jesus is given the title “Son” at the point of his enthronement, after resurrection and ascension. This has resulted in at least three approaches: 1) that Jesus only becomes the Son, an adoptionist, less than eternally divine, approach, 2) being the Son and becoming the Son are irreconcilable, resulting in a Christology at tension with itself, and 3) Jesus is always and already the Son, a divine Christology approach.

In this work, R.B. Jamieson proposes an alternative. He sees a paradox in which both meanings are true. Jesus is the Son who became the Son. Jamieson begins his argument with highlighting six Christological concepts that he contends are part of the classical Christological toolkit: 1) Who Jesus is? A single divine subject, 2) What Jesus is? One person with two natures, 3) When this Jesus is? Eternal divine existence and incarnation in time, the last times, 4) Theology and economy, or “partitive exegesis,” that is distinguishing passages speaking of Jesus as eternally divine, and those speaking of his incarnation, 5) Twofold or reduplicative predication, a complement to number 4 in focusing on the incarnate state, and distinguishing what passages reference Jesus divine nature an what his human nature, and 6) paradoxical predication: the communication of idioms, that seemingly incompatible qualities must be ascribed to the single person of the Son. He roots these in conciliar Christianity and proposes that these, although an unusual exegetical strategy, actually allow one to read with the grain of Hebrews.

In succeeding chapters then, he unpacks his argument of the Son who became the Son. Chapter 2 focuses on the use of Son as a divine designation of his mode of divine existence, distinct from the Father and the Spirit, and as a reference to his deity. Chapter 3 turns to the Son’s incarnate mission, fully divine and fully human, and that his life, suffering, death, and resurrection are not fissures in Christology but reflect tension and resolution. Chapter 4 focuses on the enthronement of Jesus upon completion of his saving mission, confirming his messianic rule, in which he is designated messianic Son. Then, the unique twist of chapter 5 is that Jesus could only become the messianic Son because he is the divine Son incarnate–only the God-man can fill this office.

In the conclusion of the book, he first returns to the “toolkit” and shows how the Jesus of Hebrews is the Jesus of Chalcedon. He then proposes in brief that one might extend his approach to at least two other passages: Acts 2:36 and Romans 1:3-4. Finally, he points to the pastoral implication of his argument, that in the Son who became the Son, we have been given all we need in Christ.

I thought this book a marvelous example of theology and biblical studies in conversation. We see in careful study of Hebrews the questions and data about the nature of the Son that became the substance of conciliar discussion. And we see how the “Christological toolkit” of the councils offers resources for making sense of the biblical data. What I also appreciated was the carefully organized and articulated argument of this book. Jamieson “shows his work,” enabling us to follow him with clarity of language and steps in his argument. Scholars of other persuasions will have to show why theirs is a better construction of the text than this well-argued case.

____________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.