This is Life!: Revolutions Around the Cruciform Axis

Where Is the Church? Part VI

Recapitulation

In the first part of this series of posts, I noted that all ecclesiologies essentially reduce to two opposing options: the Branch Model, in which the Church is comprised of all the various churches and groups, in a spiritual union; and the Exclusive Model in which a church or group claims to be the Church, visible and incarnate, as well as spiritual, in contradistinction to all the rest. I argued in that first part that of the two models, the Branch Model was fundamentally flawed and failed to substantiate its own claims. I contended that the Branch Model does not take seriously the incarnate nature of the Church, which the Church must have if it is Christ’s Body, but necessarily spiritualizes such union in a way that ultimately negates an incarnate and visible union. The Exclusive Model, on the other hand, fundamentally integrates both the spiritual and the incarnate realities of the unity of the Church, and thus is the proper model for ecclesiology. However, that does not mean that any exclusive claim to be the Church can be taken on its face. There must be standard, essential characteristics that distinguish the true Church from all others making the claim to be the Church.

In the next four parts in this series of posts (Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V), I one by one examined the four cardinal characteristics of the Church: unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity. These essential qualities are enumerated in the Nicene Creed, but lest I be thought to be question-begging, I turned to St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, with support from other New Testament Scriptures, to show that these qualities are, indeed, essential qualities of the Church, and, more importantly, how the New Testament defines those qualities. On some of those qualities, especially that of catholicity, I also drew in support from among the earliest Christian writings to show that my interpretation of these New Testament texts was in line with what the earliest Christians understood about these concepts.

If I have done my task well, I have argued for an understanding of the Church that necessitates a claim to exclusivity (there is only one visible body among all Christian churches and groups that can lay claim to the reality of being the Church) and confirmed from the New Testament what criteria one may have for discerning between competing claims. Furthermore, I have also further supported my contention that the Branch Model is a heresy, and we should look for a church or group that claims to be the visible, incarnate Body of Christ exclusive to all others.

So, taking these four characteristics in hand, let’s return to the two models and see how it is that the Branch Model is a heresy and the Exclusive Model fundamentally correct. We will then draw near to an answer to the question with which these posts have been concerned: Where is the Church?

Back to the Models

In addition to the failure to substantiate its own claims, the Branch Model fails to live up to the New Testament criteria for being the Church. As we have seen, the unity of the Church is both divine and human, spiritual and earthly, visible/incarnate and invisible. It encompasses all of the Church in the heavenlies, as well as the Church on earth. The Branch Model cannot offer this full unity, for the visible/incarnate reality of the Branch Model is that all the churches and groups it attempts to draw into its schema are divided from one another, and the divisions are not merely superficial but significant. The Branch Model fails on holiness, for we know this holiness must be an incarnate one, which necessitates a sacramental understanding of faith and salvation. And yet many churches and groups reject sacraments. The Branch Model fails on catholicity, because it cannot locate the fullness of the Church in any one local body, particularly if that local body rejects the Eucharistic Mystery. The Branch Model necessitates a view that individual congregations are only parts of a greater whole, and this is not the New Testament understanding of the local Church. Finally, the Branch Model fails on apostolicity not only because it is not possible to assign apostolicity to the full body of contrary and contradictory teachings that are claimed to be “apostolic,” but also because it cannot substantiate a tangible and lived connection between its members today and the historical men and women who were the first Pentecostal members of the Church; the embodied ways of life are impossible of all reconciling with the way of life handed down by the apostles.

The Exclusive Model, on the other hand, gives room for all these New Testament characteristics to be realized. The Exclusive Model more fully manifests unity in that it gives credence not just to the spiritual unity, but also recognizes that the spiritual unity must be incarnated in a particular body. The Exclusive Model also more fully manifests holiness in that it incarnates that holiness of the Church among a particular people, especially in the Eucharist. The Exclusive Model best manifest catholicity as it reveals the whole Church in the local Church as well as manifests its connection to the worldwide Churches. And the Exclusive Model more fully manifests apostolicity not only because it can claim apostolic doctrine, but because it can demonstrate an incarnate connection to the apostolic Church.

Discernment

But there are many churches that claim to be the Church, or the New Testament Church. My heritage churches, especially the a capella churches of Christ, claimed to have restored the New Testament Church in our day. The Roman Catholic Church claims to be the Church. The Orthodox Churches claim to be the Church Christ founded. Southern Baptists make their claim as to being the Church, and preaching an apostolic gospel of salvation by faith alone. How does one decide?

I submit that the only criteria that can be of any help are the ones we have examined in these posts.

If the Church is the Body of Christ, it must be one. If the Church is one, then there is only one real Church. Making this claim does not limit the grace and workings of God to the embodied Church. God sends the sunshine on the good and the wicked. The Spirit moves where he will. But it is to say that one may and must say, "Here is the Church." In our present schismatic reality, this point must be strongly pressed, though it be as strongly disbelieved. If the Church is the Body of Christ, it cannot be divided, since Christ is one, and the Trinity is one. The schisms we have witnessed in history and presently are not divisions within the one, indivisible Body of Christ, but divisions away from it. And that means that any church today claiming to be the Church must never have divided from the historic Church, the Church which can be traced historically, ontologically, if you will, back to the day of Pentecost.

If the Church which Christ founded is holy, this holiness will not merely be a juridical declaration, but will have incarnate reality. Christ, in assuming a body, sanctified the human body. Christ, in being baptized in the Jordan, sanctified all the waters of the world. Christ, in ascending bodily into heaven left a visible, incarnate Church in which bread is sanctified, wine is sanctified, water and oil is sanctified. That is to say, the Church has sacraments. Bread and wine become through the invocation of the Holy Spirit, the Body and Blood of Christ, just as through the Holy Spirit, the womb of a virgin in Nazareth became God's throne. Many Christians today reject this. They do so naively, to be sure, but in so doing they unwittingly but truly reject the Church Christ has given us.

If the Church is truly catholic, then it will not be a sum of all its parts, but will, in each local Church, contain the whole of Christ in the Eucharist and thus the whole of the Church as well. Thus, each bishop, who pastors each local Church, will be among brothers, and though some brothers may be graced with special dignity and honor, no one brother will rule over all, for all are shepherds who serve as undershepherds to our Chief Pastor and Bishop, Christ.

If the Church is the Body of Christ and apostolic, then it must be and proclaim the truth of Christ. That is to say, the genuineness of any group's claim to be the Church (or a part of the Church) rests significantly on whether or not it proclaims the truth of Christ, for Christ himself is the Truth, and departure from truth is a departure from Christ. Christ promised to lead the apostles, and the Church, into all truth. Part of that revelation, by Paul's own account, is both recorded in the documents that the Church has discerned to be the Scriptures and kept by way of the so-called "oral teachings" of the Apostles. It also, in concert with Christ's promises, includes those dogmatic decisions of the one, visible Church on matters of faith (for example, the ecumenical Councils). Thus, any group which teaches that which is contrary to Scripture or the ecumenical teachings of the Church, or denies those Scriptures and teachings, may rightly be doubted as to the veracity of its claim to be the Church, or part of the Church. Thus, for example, anyone who or any group which would deny the biblical and conciliar understandings of the person and work of Christ may invalidate, by their own mouths, their claims to be part of the Church. This would include, in part, the denial of Jesus' divinity and humanity, the Trinitarian understanding of God's being, the Virgin Birth, the bodily Resurrection, the unending rule of Christ, etc.

I well recognize that certain of my readers will reject these conclusions, but in so doing, they must reject what has been previously discussed, either that these are indeed the characteristics of the Church of Christ, or that the New Testament defines them in this way. And they are welcome to advance their own arguments as to what those characteristics should be and mean. I am doubtful, however, that a better case can be made. Not because I have argued it, but because it is, I believe, the ancient case and has stood the test of time.

A Personal Conclusion

You will note that throughout this argument I have refrained from making any definitive statement as to which church or group is the Church. I have made some comments exemplifying some of my points that may be seen to be critical of specific churches, but have not, for all that, definitively said, “These are not the Church,” or “These are the Church.” My intent has been to let the argument speak for itself, in particular my argument derived from the New Testament texts.

Those who've read my blog for more than a day, however, will know exactly my thoughts on the matter. They will know that I believe and am firmly convinced that the Orthodox Church is truly what She claims to be, the Church Christ founded in the New Testament which continues, as He promised, to this day. I hope it will now be seen that I do not make this claim, or rather, I do not affirm this claim lightly, or as a matter of mere personal preference. It is as a result of much study and prayer.

I recognize that this will likely offend my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters. I do wish such a claim would not create the offense, but for that to happen, Rome and the Orthodox would have to reunite.

But I do, I feel, owe my Roman Catholic readers an explanation as to why I think Orthodoxy is the Church. Regrettably, due to the nature of this series of posts, as well as my blog in general, such an explanation must be brief. In short, I do not believe that the ancient Church ever taught the rule of one bishop over the entire Church. I can see no theological, biblical, historical or liturgical evidence that would support such a teaching. I recognize that abler men and women than me have defended this teaching, and I have read those arguments. But I am not convinced. Furthermore, I do not believe the ancient Church ever taught the doctrine of original sin as the Roman Catholic Church teaches it, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, based on that doctrine of original sin, or the infallibility of the Pope (I believe the infallibility belongs to the Church, not to a single bishop). These doctrines, particularly papal supremacy and infallibility, however, are not just theologoumena, but are absolutely required of every Catholic. This, I believe, is a distortion of the apostolic deposit, and a departure from the ancient faith of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Finally, I cannot accept the filioque. Though I know the filioque has been explained in such a way so as to make it consonant with ancient Trinitarian theology, I believe that some of the Trinitarian errors that have arisen, even if they have later been rejected, have arisen in part because of this unjustified addition to the Creed.

For these reasons, and in comparing what the Orthodox teach today with the ancient epitomes and creeds of the faith and the Scriptures, I believe that only Orthodox can legitimately claim to have kept the faith without addition or subtraction, whole and entire that was first given to the Apostles.

And that is why I am an “Orthodox wannabe,” patiently waiting and praying and working to enter the Orthodox Church with all my family.

Posted by Clifton at March 10, 2005 04:06 PM | TrackBack