The Gospel and the Catholic Church by A.M. Ramsey: An Appreciation and Discussion Part Two Michael Newnham and Duane W.H. Arnold
The Gospel and the Catholic Church by A.M. Ramsey:
An Appreciation and Discussion
Part Two
Michael Newnham and Duane W.H. Arnold
“Thus the first need of the Christians, in face of the apathy and the bewilderment about the Church, is to know and to be able to say plainly what the Church really is.”
Ramsey wrote ‘The Gospel and the Catholic Church’ in the 1930s. More than a decade had passed since the wholesale killings of the First World War. The results of the great depression still held sway in both Europe and America, generating a continuing sense of financial uncertainty. Stalinist Russia had begun to emerge from the throes of revolution to once again become a power on the world stage. Populist, nationalist, autocratic and fascist regimes were rising in Europe and the Far East. Some questioned the value of democracy as a workable system of government.
Within this maelstrom, there were questions as to the nature, value and importance of the Christian Church. Some in the Church sought, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, to align themselves with the new political realities and even to endorse nationalist and, in some cases, racial policies. Others, saw the Church as an instrument of progressive ideals. Meanwhile, among the broad middle, there was a rising sense that the Church, as it had been known, was simply irrelevant.
In many ways, it was a time much like our own.
In the midst of these conflicting claims Ramsey decided to write a book. “This book is written as a study of the Church, and its doctrine, and unity and structure, in terms of the Gospel of Christ crucified and risen.” He then goes on to describe the very nature of the Church as being centered in death… and only then in life.
Duane: Michael, earlier you talked about the “filter” of suffering. In Ramsey’s book, suffering seems to be the unresolved “Why?” of the Christian life. Did the book give you any way to approach this unresolved “Why?” in a different manner?
Michael: The theologies I was familiar with saw suffering as something to be defeated…there was an expectation of temporal deliverance from suffering (usually though prayer) because suffering was not supposed to be a part of the Christian experience except for brief training purposes. Thus, if you were not delivered, something was wrong with you or your faith. That notion never seems to have crossed Ramsey’s mind. Suffering unto death in sacrificial love anticipating resurrection is the very definition of what it means to be in Christ in his writing. Therefore…suffering becomes part of who you are in Christ, rather than something to be overcome.
Duane: I think you’ve hit on something important. So many theological systems are built on “absolutes”. That is, all questions must be answered. The answers, in the main, are binary. They are “yes” and “no”. We tend to speak of faith in Christ as a “commitment”, made once and then acted upon throughout life. Yet, in our lives, we all carry questions. We all carry the “Why?” that Christ cries out in the Passion. Yet, most theological systems leave little, if any, room for that question. It seems to me that Ramsey, along with many of his era such as Lewis, Barth, Congar, Rahner and so many others, seemed to accept that carrying the questions, living the questions, was simply part of what it meant to be a Christian. As Ramsey wrote, “…within and especially within His death and resurrection the Church is actually present. We must search for the fact of the Church not beyond Calvary and Easter but within them.” Michael, why do you think so much of current Christian thinking is enamored with power, success and, indeed, even a triumphalism that has little to do with finding our true reality in the passion and the resurrection?
Michael: That’s another question that turned things upside down for me. Ramsey (and Scripture) is very clear that our whole faith and “the church” is to be found victorious through and in the sacrificial love that leads to death and then resurrection. In other words, without an identification with Christ that embraces living in sacrificial love grounded in following the example of Christ there is no faith, nor is there a true church. I keep using the word “sacrificial” intentionally…the point, as St. Peter said is that we are all “living sacrifices”. There is little celebration or boasting walking with one cross and toward another cross. Further…and I say this with fear and trembling…it makes one wonder if what we call “church” today has anything to do with Christ…
Duane: It is not an irrelevant question. I think when you place Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension on a timeline, that is, in the past, rather than as a present reality, you run the risk of constantly asking the question, “What’s next?”. Then, we “fill in the blank” with “seeker friendly”, contemporary or traditional, progressive or conservative. In other words, we focus on style in lieu of substance so we can stay on a timeline that, in our opinion, is moving forward. Yet, Ramsey recognized that the substance of what we call “church” is primary. “For, as is baptized into man’s death, so men shall be baptized into His; and as He loses His life to find it in the Father, so men may by a veritable death find a life whose centre is in Christ and in the brethren. One died for all, therefore all died. To say this is to describe the Church of God.” I think this is why later Ramsey made the very blunt statement that, “Individualism… has no place in Christianity and Christianity verily means its extinction”. Yet in our era, individualism and singular personalities in the Church are considered desirable. Michael, what do you think has changed?
Michael: Somewhere in the last hundred years or so, the measure of “success” in the church changed from faithful living in a consecrated community to the number of people in a building on Sunday. Michael Ramsey’s biblical view of the church and the Christian life will not “sell” well in this culture. I’ve yet to see a church sign inviting people to “come and die”. Ramsey’s views were not an unusual ecclesiology for most of the church age…they certainly are now.
Duane: No, I’ve not seen a sign, but in a Eucharistic community of faith, the central act of worship is not the “gifted teacher” or the spellbinding sermon, but rather it is participation in, and proclamation of, a death. It is a death that breaks into the present and defines the future. “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”
_______________________________
We will continue this conversation in future installments. If, however, this discussion interests you, please feel free to enter into the conversation through your comments. The book, ‘The Gospel and the Catholic Church’ by A.M. Ramsey, is available through Amazon in both print and digital formats. Either can be accessed through our Amazon Associates link.
Part 2
Maybe part of the problem is that we as a church, generally speaking, ascribe virtue to a variety of ideas that are of questionable value (especially in regards to actual virtue). In turn the church aspires towards these paltry substitutions for virtue and pats itself on the back as being the bastion of assurance in an ever-shifting world. Whether we applaud ourselves individually or collectively it is nothing but self-congratulation. I sometimes wonder does God really say, “Well done my good and faithful servant” to these aberrant expressions of the faith? It seems to me that everyone thinks that what they are doing to defend or propagate the faith will without a doubt hear those words from the Heavenly Father. But will they?
I liken it to a friend and co-worker worked with my wife in accounting. This friend was always behind on her end of the month reconciliations. The reason for this may actually be very instructive. This business took in hundreds of thousands of dollars of revenue in a month (millions in the busy season). There are always discrepancies that need to be noted. She would literally spend hours upon hours trying to reconcile the most menial differences. In most cases literally pennies. There were other receipts where the discrepancies totaled between 25-40k each. There were always at least three or four others. She was a star at majoring in the minors. This went on month after month and year after year regardless of how many times she was advised to work on the larger reconciliations.
To her credit she was usually on time and dependable not to mention that because of her past she had a high tolerance for abuse. This work environment was highly abusive so they kept her despite of her preponderance for pennies. The point is that the church as culture is doing the same thing chasing politics and every perceived outside attack while missing the greatest receipt in their accounting books that needs to be reconciled, namely, sacrificial love and suffering.
As for the idea of death as a normative expression of the Christian faith through sacrificial love and suffering this is something I am always processing. This is a very distinctive feature of Christ’s life and ministry. I think I could easily make an argument that death as a means of living, whether literal or metaphorical, is found consistently all throughout the Scriptures. One only has to think of the Prophets and the Apostles to make a strong case for it. Yet, the question remains, “Why does the church at large mainly ignore this vital aspect of faith despite the overwhelming Biblical evidence for it?” It is a question not easily answered though the answer is quite simple.
It is a sad day when, “The message of the cross becomes foolishness” not only to those who are perishing but even to those who are being saved. I need to let that thought marinate for a minute. I once preached a sermon on 1 Corinthians 1:18 and came to the conclusion that the cross is counterintuitive. In other words, for all intense purposes (lol!) the message of the cross is moronic or stupid. It definitely was for the Greek and the Jew. How much more would it be then to take something so culturally and physically appalling and positively appropriate it? When we understand the history and the context of crucifixion we know how radical a statement like, “pick up your cross and follow me,” really was/is. Then for the Apostle Paul to write, “I am crucified with Christ.” I am pretty sure that no one but God saw that coming.
These statements requiring imitation and identification with the act of crucifixion could possibly be considered clinical insanity. We still do it today though with varying degrees of commitment or understanding. Take the old hymn that Chris Tomlin popularized, “Oh, the wonderful cross! Bids me come and die that I might live.” It is sad that many of the same Christians who sang/sing the words of that hymn are now caught up in these less than virtuous pursuits. It may not be the actual pursuit that is problematic in the light of virtue rather it is the practice and expression of it, that is alas cognitive dissonance at its finest.
So where do we find ourselves at this point? Oh yes, I remember. While the message of the cross may be counterintuitive to all logic and reason. It is nonetheless the kernel that falls to the ground and dies to produce life afterwards. It is here that both the wisdom and power of God are found not only soteriologically but also as a means, the primary mean, of sanctification. It seems that imitation of this principle toppled more kingdoms, individual and collective, physical and metaphorical, than all the political positioning could ever hope to do. And we wonder why the meaning and place of the church is in Flux? The mirror reveals. Reflections reflect just who we are.