Tuesday, February 22, 2005 AD
Brand dilution and the church
Rick Ritchie's entertaining and thought-provoking dialogue between St Augustine, Martin Luther and C.S. Lewis includes one section that addresses a similar issue to my post last week on dilution of the evangelical "trade mark" (not to mention Rob's classic ad on the same subject).
At one point during the discussion, "Martin Luther" describes his confusion at walking into a monastery in contemporary California "where the Papacy has given up every pretense of being Christian". It's not the fact that the monks were wearing orange robes that bothered him - he could see how the change of colour might be welcome - but the fact that they were sitting in front of a giant gold statue rather than a crucifix.
After it is explained to him that this was a Buddhist monastery rather than a Roman one, Luther replies:
But thinking about it, the word "church" is probably even more important than the word "evangelical". People can be saved without so much as ever hearing the word "evangelical" - though it wouldn't do them any harm to come across the word on the front cover of the Book of Concord :-). But the idea that people can reliably find salvation without the church - that is, without (in both senses of that word) "the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered" - is one of the most persistent and dangerous delusions we encounter today.
And it probably reveals something of a blindspot on my own part that I should be so alert to misuse of the word "evangelical", but so blasé about the word "church".
At one point during the discussion, "Martin Luther" describes his confusion at walking into a monastery in contemporary California "where the Papacy has given up every pretense of being Christian". It's not the fact that the monks were wearing orange robes that bothered him - he could see how the change of colour might be welcome - but the fact that they were sitting in front of a giant gold statue rather than a crucifix.
After it is explained to him that this was a Buddhist monastery rather than a Roman one, Luther replies:
Luther: Thank heaven! So why did they use the word monastery? Don't the pagans have a word of their own?As Ritchie points out, "Luther" is right, but the cause is hopeless: we can't outlaw people's use of these words.
Ritchie: There is probably a Chinese word for such a place, but they want people to understand what it is, so they choose the closest equivalent in English.
Luther: What an evil perversion of language. Don't people realize what that kind of thing does? Before my time, the gospel was lost to the church for centuries because of the improper translation of one Greek word that you in English translate "repentance." It could happen here too. If the Buddhists can call their religious place a monastery, what is to keep some other pagan group from using the word "church"?
Ritchie: They do it all the time.
Luther: And Christians don't protest? What are those outside of the church to think if they hear the same word applied to Christians and pagans? They will think that all religion is the same. It is confusing enough when you share these words with heretics. You need to win this word back!
But thinking about it, the word "church" is probably even more important than the word "evangelical". People can be saved without so much as ever hearing the word "evangelical" - though it wouldn't do them any harm to come across the word on the front cover of the Book of Concord :-). But the idea that people can reliably find salvation without the church - that is, without (in both senses of that word) "the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered" - is one of the most persistent and dangerous delusions we encounter today.
And it probably reveals something of a blindspot on my own part that I should be so alert to misuse of the word "evangelical", but so blasé about the word "church".
