In the previous post (part II), I noted that, at least in terms of the question under consideration, “Where is the Church?” the essential characteristic of the Church is the manifestation of Her love in unity. From that unity, I argued (again in terms of this question), flowed the other cardinal characteristics of what it means to be the Church: holiness, catholicity and apostolicity.
Holy
I have been locating these characteristics in the book of Ephesians, lest anyone think the Nicene qualities are simply tendentiously asserted by myself. With that in mind, let us look at a seminal text in Ephesians denoting the holiness of the Church.
Husbands, be loving your own wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave Himself up for her, in order that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her in the laver of the water with the word, that He might present her to Himself the glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any of such things; but that she might be holy and unblemished. (Ephesians 5:25-27, The Orthodox New Testament, © 2004 Holy Apostles Convent)
This text is, of course, much debated in our modernist egalitarian society, but not for the characteristic it notes about the Church: that she is holy and unblemished. That is not to say, however, that the holiness of the Church itself is not questioned. Indeed, it is flatly rejected and denied by secular society, and, sadly, Christians as well. The New Testament, however, is adamant about this. Holiness is an essential quality if one would see the Lord. Writes the author of the Hebrews epistle, "Be pursuing peace with all, and sanctification [i. e., holiness], without which no one shall see the Lord" (Hebrews 12:14). No one can see God unless they are holy. The Church, then can have no part of God if She is not holy. Indeed, if She is one with Jesus as Jesus and the Father are one, if the unity of the Holy Trinity obtains in the Church, then She must be holy. And not just holy “one day,” or “when Jesus comes again,” but now, presently. Otherwise the Church Herself is not one with God now and presently, and thus, in effect does not exist. But that She exists is clearly asserted by Scripture and history, and the rest must necessarily follow. That the Church is presently, now, holy is attested to by St. Paul in Colossians:
And you, being once alienated and enemies in your mind, in wicked works, yet now did He reconcile in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy and blameless and without reproach before Him-- . . . (Colossians 1:21-22)
And also in St. Peter's first epistle:
[Y]e also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. . . . But ye are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for a possession,” that ye might “tell forth the virtues” of the One Who called you out of darkness into His wondrous light . . . (1 Peter 2:5, 9)
Note the present tenses of these declarations: “yet now did He reconcile,” “ye are a holy priesthood,” and so forth. Of course, many will ask, how does one reconcile the fact that the Church is holy, but her members commit sins? For many, this proposition is an either/or concept: either the Church is holy now, and Her members do not sin, or She isn't, and Her members do sin. But it will help our thinking to consider the words of the Apostle John:
And this is the message which we have heard from Him and we announce to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. If we should say we have communion with Him, and walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have communion with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sins. If we should say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we be confessing our sins, faithful is He and righteous to forgive us our sins and cleanses us from all unrighteousness. If we should say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. (1 John 1:5-10)
That is to say, the reality is a both/and. Individual Church members do commit sins, and those sins are routinely confessed and remitted via the Blood of our Lord. But the Church Herself is blameless and holy. It is only a heretical reductionism that must insist on a split between the holiness of the Church and the repentant lives of Her members. Salvation is a process, theosis, and in God's mercy and wisdom not accomplished in an instant. Says St. Paul elsewhere, “[B]e working out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is the One Who energizeth in you both to will and to energize for the sake of His good pleasure” (Philippians 2:12-13). St. Irenaeus of Lyons may help us think about this:
But our opinion [doxa, also “teaching”] is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity. (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 4.18.5)
Note St. Irenaeus' contention: we have two realities, the earthly and the heavenly. If the bread and wine can contain both an earthly reality and a heavenly one, so, too, our bodies, though corruptible and subject to death, on the basis of the Eucharist are no longer corruptible. This was asserted by St. Ignatios of Antioch in the previous post: the Eucharist is the medicine of divine immortality. (Epistle to the Ephesians, chapter 20). We live in the time of the “now and not yet.” We are a holy priesthood, and we also must confess our sins and receive cleansing.
Posted by Clifton at March 7, 2005 11:14 AM | TrackBackSomeone told me that if the Orthodox Church were Sola Scriptura (which is simply inconceivable, because then it would not be Orthodox) it would be basically like the so-called Churches of Christ. This struck me as particularly interesting since you were once apart of the Restoration Movement of which the Churches of Christ are a part. I think the similarities my friend showed me were superficial, because they do not have the same foundation. For example: the Churches of Christ do not use instruments during worship. Neither does the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church says it is the One True Church. So do the Churches of Christ. But the reason for the Orthodox not using instruments in worship is different from that of the Church of Christ. The Orthodox do not have a argument from silence in the Scriptures against using instruments in worship, and one can actually historically read about the musical dispute in the Churches of Christ which really had nothing to do with pure doctrine. Another problem is that it is simply fallacious to say "Well, there are a lot of churches that claim to be the True Church. Therefore I can't subscribe to anything that says it is the True Church." (They actually said they couldn't subscribe to Orthodoxy because there are so many churches that claim to be the True Church.)
Now, here is how I think reasoning process goes: the Orthodox Church claims to be the True Church. So do the Roman Catholic Church, United Pentecostals, the Churches of Christ, traditional Baptists, and Mormons, to name but a few. Implied somewhere in here is the question "How do I know Orthodoxy is true and all the other ones false or less true?" But somehow we end up with the conclusion that the Body of Christ is not visible and is simply anyone who believes the basic tenets of the faith as taught in Scripture (and if one is more traditional, the Nicene Creed). But this conclusion seems to be reached out of convenience, at the expense of - dare I say it? - common sense. I don't at all mean to be rude by this, but a serious reading of the Scriptures, especially in the context of the Apostolic Fathers, will reveal clearly the ecclesiology outlined in the Creed. Unforunately, and I know this from having been raised Protestant, we usually do not focus on the parts of his epistles where St. Paul will slip in a few choice words about the holiness of the Church. It is literally like our mind is not trained to sense the meaning of and examine those verses. After I started studying Orthodoxy, however, I found that some of these things that I'd never let sink in (try the opening of Pauline epistles for example) are really significant in revealing the mind of the Orthodox [New Testament] Church.
As a side note, it is worth mentioning that Orthodoxy's relation to other Christian sects and denominations reminds me very much of Christianity's relation to other religions. All religions cannot be valid expressions of the same truth if one of those religions excludes all other religions. In the same way, Orthodoxy must be true or it must not be. It cannot simply be another valid expression of Christianity, because it is exclusive (though not, of course, pompous).
Posted by: Clever_D at March 7, 2005 12:20 PMClever D:
In one sense, yes, the resemblence between Restoration Movement practice and doctrine and Orthodoxy is superficial; that is to say, the substance of their claims does not tie itself into the actual substance of the Church's being.
However, that is not to say that such resemblences are are only superficial. The Restoration Movement, at least in its origins, took quite seriously the doctrine of the unity of the Church, and saw the schisms for what they were, a sinful and tragic departure from the Church. Further, in a great deal of their doctrine and practice they were and are "so close and yet so far." The practice of immersion for the remission of sins; the weekly observance of the Lord's supper; the rejection of denominationalism; and so forth. They do, however, retain some of the deformation of those doctrines from their Protestantism: believers' only baptism, Zwinglian reductionism, and the fact that their own "non-denominational denomination" split three major ways in just over a century.
I respect and revere my Restorationist heritage. It ultimately brought me to Orthodoxy (through Anglicanism), and keeps me there.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at March 7, 2005 12:55 PMYes - even secular philosophy can prepare one's heart to receive the full Truth. I was specifically addressing the superficiality with which my friend made his comparisons. The differences are so deep and profound that it is hard for me to think of the similarities without also thinking, as arrogant as this sounds, "Yeah, they got that from the Orthodox!" The point on which my whole ecclesiology hinges is this: being the New Testament is more than just deriving all the correct doctrines - explicit or implied - from the book of Acts. It is rather continuing that life which began in the second chapter of Acts. :-)
Posted by: Clever_D at March 7, 2005 04:28 PMI meant to write: "Being the New Testament Church means more than just deriving the correct doctrines (whether they are explicit or implied) from the book of Acts. It means rather continuing that life which began in the second chapter of Acts."
Posted by: Clever_D at March 7, 2005 05:53 PM