a. Defining Terms
[09/18/20]
Having established to my satisfaction the centrality of Scripture to the community life of the Church, I turn to the matter of ordinances. I suppose I ought to begin by considering what we mean by the word ordinance. Fundamentally, the word is not difficult to understand. It is an order, and more specifically, a governmental order or regulation. That serves us sufficiently well in the realm of civil life. We recognize city ordinances, and in some cases, even neighborhood ordinances that are established to regulate and, in proper application, mediate our practices as part of a community. To be sure, these can become burdensome and they are subject to abuse or disregard, but the underlying principle is fine. Where there is no structure, no regulatory grid whatsoever, we arrive at anarchy – something we are experiencing too much of in our day, and something which should rightly remind us of the sad commentary given upon Israel in the period of the judges. “In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes” (Jdg 17:6, Jdg 21:25). This has to be found a particularly sad statement when one considers that God was to be king of Israel directly. It wasn’t just that Israel had no man to call king. It is that Israel had become effectively lawless, anarchical. We do well to remain mindful, that such as it may have become in our day – as in prior periods of history – yet, civil government is established by God, and so far as it abides by His higher authority, it bears His authority. Yes, this even covers neighborhood covenants.
But let us take the matter of ordinance into the Church, and we find a twofold power in the word. There is, first, an affinity in this word to the more recognizably religious word ordain. What does it mean to ordain? It means God has decreed. When we ordain a pastor or an elder, it is not that we have decided this one is worthy to lead us, although we hopefully have come to that conclusion. No, it is a recognition of what God has decided. The office is a calling, and the calling is done by God. Man may be the vehicle through which God chooses to make His decree known, but it remains His doing. So, to, the ordinances of the Church. They are matters decreed by God, declared by God. They set forth a practice, a usage, a ceremony that is to be maintained by those who would be party to His covenant. Now, I don’t think we want to stretch the term so far as to encompass every aspect of the covenant agreement as an ordinance, and yet we should not be so very far off the mark to do so.
As a point of clarification, we must, I think, distinguish what we mean by ordinance from what has been meant by sacrament, and this is why you may find many a Protestant church unwilling to consider its practices as sacraments. The term includes ideas foreign to our understanding of the matter. Sacrament describes a holy rite, as does our idea of ordinance, and indeed, I think we would hold with Augustine’s view of the sacrament as a visible sign of invisible grace. Where things become a bit less clear is when the sacrament is spoken of as not merely the sign of grace, but the means. Even with that, I think the Protestant would find broad agreement, and even add many things not generally construed as ordinances to the list. What becomes a breaking point, I think, is when the act is thought to have the power of grace in itself. This, to my thinking, pushes too close to magical thinking and paganism.
Okay, so the ordinance of the Church is required to have three distinct characteristics: The clear command of God, a sensory element (sign), and application by grace as a seal of the gospel promise. Traditionally, we find only baptism and Communion to satisfy those three requirements. Many of the sacraments practiced by the Catholic and Orthodox churches are seen as lacking the first qualification: A clear command of God. Marriage, on the other hand, is seen as lacking the third requirement: Serving as a seal of the gospel. Personally, I’m not entirely convinced marriage lacks that qualification, but let it stand for the moment.
So yes, the Protestant will concur that the ordinance is indeed a means of grace insomuch as by grace, it seals God’s promises to the believer. But we would insist there remains a strong distinction between the tangible sign and the thing signified. Here, and particularly in matters of Communion, one may find a degree of debate even within the Protestant denominations. But I find the distinction correct and necessary. Communion does not present us with the visceral body and blood of Christ, nor does He somehow inhabit the elements in some invisible sense. Rather, they are symbolic of His body and blood, just as they were at the institution of this ordinance. The power is not in the elements, nor even in their consumption. The power is in that grace which applies the perfect sacrifice of Christ to our lives, and here in these elements we find ourselves reminded and reassured of this reality. It’s a fine line distinction, and one I may consider further when I get to specific consideration of that ordinance.
