For a couple of weeks now I've been wanting to write out some of my disordered thoughts regarding salvation as I've interacted with the books by Panayiotis Nellas, Deification in Christ and John D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion. Now that final papers are out of the way, and I've had a couple nights' rest, I thought I would attempt a beginning.

My understandings of salvation have been primarily juridical, along Anselmian lines. That is to say, I've had a great debt of sin, which I have no ability to repay. Jesus, in his vicarious substitutionary death upon the cross, and his bodily resurrection from the dead authenticating the effects of the cross, paid that debt for me. To appropriate the cancellation of that debt, I respond by grace in faith in repentance and baptism. (I'll leave aside any discussions of perseverance, as I'll be focusing on this transactional aspect.) Insofar as the Church figured, it was the place you went after being saved. It was important to be a member of a local congregation because that was part of what it meant for you to be a Christian. There is where you received assistance in living out your Christian life, where you served others, and supported "the work of the Kingdom." That has been my understanding, growing up in the Stone-Campbell churches.

Reading Nellas' and Zizioulas' works, however, has capped off a several-month period of thinking about the Church. Yes, in a blog on salvation, I mention the Church. This is what has been so revolutionary for me. Now, let me offer this disclaimer. The following are my own barely-formed thoughts on these things. They should not be construed as those of Nellas or Zizioulas, or of the Church. It is not unlikely that I have misunderstandings through which I still need to work. But here it is at this point.

Salvation, rather than being mostly an individual juridical transaction--you're now declared righteous on the basis of Christ's work--is more an incorporation into Christ himself. That is to say, I'm "saved" by virtue of the fact that I, by grace, have been made to participate in the resurrected Christ. Since Jesus assumed human nature, as a human being, though without sin, he is able to incorporate us into himself. This incorporation, by the hypostasis of the divine and human natures in Jesus, enables us, as 2 Peter 1:4 indicates, to participate in the divine nature. We do not become what God is by essence, or by hypostasis (person), but rather share in the uncreated energies of God. In the terms with which I have been familiar, this is the process of justification-sanctification.

Now this is all well and good, but still very Protestant, that is to say, individualistic. I'm still in danger of succumbing to the "me and Jesus" syndrome. And here is where Nellas and Zizioulas, in their different works, coincided in my thinking. The locus of my incorporation into Christ cannot take place apart from his Body, the Church. Or, only through and in the Body of Christ, the Church, may I be saved, and continue to be saved. The Church, by virtue of its being Christ's Body, in and by the power of the Spirit, is a divine institution. It is not the amalgamation of tens of thousands of groups. It is one, because it is Christ's Body, which cannot be divided since it shares the undivided nature of Christ.

Or, to state it as simply as I can understand it at this point, if I want to be saved and continue to be saved, I can only do that by incorporation in Christ, which means incorporation in his Body, the Church.

More thoughts to come.

Now, here I am, just barely underway, and that rascally Tripp accuses me of a high Christology, wants me to clarify how the Sacraments (Mysteries) fit in to this salvation thinking, gives an oblique warning about exclusivism, and, as if that weren't enough, lumps me in with Rowan Williams. (You can look under the comments for the previous blog in this series of thinking.) Rowan Williams, for crying out loud! Hmph. (Or, as Tripp says: Urf.)

Since Tripp caved to the feminine lobby on shopping yesterday, I'll just have to simply make him wait, since I need to further iron out some of my previous thoughts. High Christology, or just simply the Church's working out of the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth, I'll leave for others to decide, though I'm shy of the label, since it implies that a "Low" Christology (whatever that is) is equally plausible.

Romans 5, Hebrews 1, Colossians 1, and pretty much the entire epistle to the Ephesians clearly indicate that Jesus Christ is the type of the fulfillment of humanity, in a way that Adam is the anti-type. In Christ the entirety of humanity reaches its end, its culmination, its completion. The bodily Resurrection of the Christ from the dead, was God's seal of approval on the work of Christ. That is to say, the Resurrection completed the salvation event, and made possible the salvation of human beings. The human nature, which the Son of God took on becoming a human being, has been hypostasized, joined with the divinity of the Son in the union of one person, without confusion, change, separation, or division (per Chalcedon). Thus, the union with God, for which Jesus prayed in John 17, has, in Jesus Christ, become an accomplished fact.

But for humans to receive this gift of salvation, it takes the action of the Trinity. God the Father has sent forth the Spirit, not merely to accomplish the conception of Jesus, but also to bring forth the Body, the Church, of which Christ is the Head. The ministry of Christ is now the ministry of his Church, his Body. This Body was brought forth, or perhaps confirmed, on the day of Pentecost, a week and a half after Christ had ascended to the Father.

Furthermore, as Acts 2:38, and elsewhere in Acts and the epistles, shows, on a personal level, the Holy Spirit is also involved, in baptism. Especially in Acts, but also in Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12-14 (and, of course, 1-3), and all of Ephesians (but especially 4), this salvation is accomplished in the Church. Frequently through Acts, there is the phrase "and x were added to their number." Without getting too pharasaical with the text, the salvation and the adding are presented together as one complete act. One could say, adding is being saved.

The very first account we have of the Church, in conjunction with the Pentecost narrative, is their devotion to the apostles teaching, to prayers, to fellowship and the breaking of the bread. This breaking of the bread has most often been associated with the Lord's Supper, or the Eucharist. And clearly, in light of 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, this is among the most natural ways to interpret the text. Be that as it may, Paul emphatically states in the Corinthians letter that participation in the Lord's Supper is participation in Christ. Though Protestants have disputed the interpretation of the text in ch. 11--where a "face-value" reading of the text indicates the elements of bread and wine are, in some unexplained way, the body and blood of Jesus--the force is clear: partaking of the Lord's Supper is participation in Christ.

The import of this is that the Church makes possible, on the human level, for one to receive salvation. Baptism is done by the Church (Acts 2), the Eucharist is the locus of the Body of Christ, so that appropriation of salvation and participation in Christ take place within the Church.

Well, Tripp, I hope that touched on the Mysteries for you. But clearly, you can see, I'm still processing these thoughts. Sorry, though, this thing about exclusivism will have to wait.

Now, I need to get ready for worship!

Jeff and Tripp are impatient for me to discuss potential notions of exclusivism insofar as it's tied to my growing understanding of the Church as the human and divine means of our salvation. To be fair and honest upfront, I'm not sure this blog will actually answer that, so much as try to lay some groundwork for my further thinking on the matter. I should also note that I will both draw from and assume much of the thought contained in the essay I've already written on the unity of the Church. So, for more detail, you can go there. I will summarize my thought on the Church's unity, and attempt to draw it together with what I've been sorting out regarding salvation.

The point with which we, as Christians, have to start is the ontological unity of the Church. From Jesus' prayer in John 17 to Paul's majestic comments in Ephesians, as well as elsewhere throughout the New Testament (cf. 1 Corinthians 1-3, 10-11, 12-14; Colossians 1; etc.), the Church is one. I cannot stress this too strongly. There was not some glorious point in the past in which the Church was one, but then split. The witness of Scripture is that the unity of the Church is based in the person of Christ, indeed, on the unity of the Trinity. There can be no division within Christ, nor in the Trinity, nor can there be in the Church. If the Church were ever to cease to be one, it would fail to be in union with Christ and with the Trinity, and would cease to be. In which case, Jesus' promise that Hades would not prevail against the Church would be null and void, and make of Jesus a false prophet.

The witness of the earliest Christian writers, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons, Cyprian of Carthage, all witness as well to the, what I am calling, ontological unity of the Church.

Now, certainly there are historical difficulties which challenge our thinking on this matter. There are the Monophysite and Monothelite schisms, the Great Schism of east and west, the Western schism between Protestant and Catholics, and the 22,0000-plus schisms worldwide among the Protestants themselves alone. Had these schisms not taken place, and were we not Protestants, then the issue of unity would be a non-issue. Regrettably, however, all of us Protestants now living live within a milieu of schism, nor do we know anything different.

There seem to me to be only about three ways (though each has its own potential variations) to deal with the facticity of the Church's unity, and the myriad schisms among Christians. One way is to assert that the unity of the Church is coterminous with a specific body, though not denying the salvific and mysterious grace of the Holy Spirit among those outside that body. This is view of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches about themselves respectively. Another way is to assert the unity of the Church but to deny its applicability to any one church or group of churches, which is to assert something like an invisible unity among all believers in all churches. This is the view of most of the Protestant churches. What seems to me to be the only other major possibility is to deny the Church's essential unity in the present and to assert that this is only a proleptic state reserved for the eschaton.

This last seems to me to be the most problematic of all. It appears to me to wrench what I take to be the straightforward reading of the biblical texts, and, more importantly, divorces the present state of the Church from union with God. More to the point it radicalizes the Church to the point that the Church is each individual, and does not allow for any possibility for real union among believers. In other words, it normalizes schism in the here and now.

The so-called "Protestant" view, while charitable toward those who differ from us, and rightly affirming diversity in non-essential matters, as well as properly humble with regard to truth claims, is not without its own set of problems. Chief among those is an implicit denial of the Incarnation. By making of the Church's unity something like an invisible state, this view devalues the embodied existence we as Christians have and will have for eternity, in favor of some sort of Gnostic-like state of adherence to a set of beliefs, robust enough to still be Gospel, but small enough so that we can include, if not everybody, most everybody. The problem, however, is one of criteria. If, as Protestants generally assert, each believer, or each community, sets its own standards of belief and practice, how is it that some sort of invisible unity can make any sense? If we all go our own way believing whatever it is that we believe, how is this any better than the state of schism which prevails? We just simply open our arms and affirm our solidarity with those with whom we disagree? But then doesn't that make a mockery of the beliefs we hold? It seems to me that this view attempts to have diversity and unity at the same time, but the Protestant problem is primarily one of authority. And without a cogent answer to that, and with implicit Gnosticism and potential denial of the Incarnation, it seems a dead end. Considering that Protestant schisms continue to grow, it's not likely that the proof of the pudding is in the eating here.

But of course, it's not as though the Roman Catholic-Eastern Orthodox understandings of ontological and visible unity being coterminous with their respective churches seems any more palatable to the ones considered on the outside of the visible Church. The pluses here, of course, is that it both makes sense of the biblical texts and takes seriously the embodied existence we Christians have as redeemed people, and thus takes seriously the Incarnation, as well as providing the one thing that Protestants cannot provide in their claims--a tangible historic link to the New Testament Church.

This is not to be understated. All Western churches can only trace their history back to Rome. It is through Rome that any Protestants can lay claim to a historic connection to the Church of Peter, Barnabas, Stephen and Paul. Orthodox, insofar as I understand it, are fortunate in that they go right on back. In fact, the Thessalonian church exists to this day. The historic connection is important. Even we Protestants have to base our understanding of the Gospel and the early Church on historically validated (or validatable) events. Rome and the East go right on back.

However, the problem here is one of criteria. How does one actually "prove" one's claim to being the Church? I'm not talking here of tracing a certain lineage. Rather, I'm talking about proving one is the Church Christ founded. Apostolic succession alone won't do it. Some of the worst heretics in the Church could have traced a valid sacramental line back to Peter and the Apostles. (Need we remind ourselves of Pope Honorius, or Nestorius?) Certainly continuity with the Apostles' teaching is paramount. But how does one discern between rival claims to orthodoxy?

Clearly, the implication here is that, depending on how one answers the question of unity, the understanding I've come to regarding the role of the Church in our salvation will have huge implications for one's relation to the various schisms we see before us today. If the Church is located in Rome or the Orthodox churches, then, it seems to follow that one must find one's way to Rome or the East in order to experience the fullness of the grace of Christ. While not denying that grace operates outside the Church, there is a certain responsibility one has to the truth when one discovers it. But perhaps it's possible to work out the problems of Protestant invisible unity in such a way so as to preserve the understanding of salvation without having to swear allegiance to the Pope, or repent of one's former heresies as a Protestant when chrismated in Orthodoxy.

Well, I've already lengthened this beyond forbearance. So I'll leave it with that non-conclusion and duck the arrows sure to come.

Actually, this is more of a clarification/reflection. In the comments on some of the entries on the various blogs thinking online about this topic, I've been classed as something of an "Eastern Orthodox sympathizer" for my views. I'll not deny my sympathies lie with Antioch (and the rest of the East) just now, but I really have not tried so much to espouse Orthodox views so much as to espouse views of the Church pre-Great Schism. More accurately, I have very consciously attempted to align my beliefs with the doctrine and dogma of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. If that makes me "Eastern Orthodox" in my sympathies, so be it, but I rather suppose those beliefs are not limited to the Orthodox. One could witness the Tractarians (though I can't remember if they refused to accept the 7th Council on images), and not a few modern-day Anglicans. Rome accepts the Seven Councils as well, though she also adds to them the filioque, papal infallibility, the immaculate conception, among others.

I suppose what I'm trying to do is maintain footing in the 21st century without jettisoning the past--as though I "know better" than did my Christian ancestors on matters pertinent to my own tiny corner of history. I'm not accusing any of my interlocutors of doing that (jettisoning the past), but maybe we present-day Protestants hold the past a little too loosely--when we don't indeed reject it outright.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want to come across as whining. Nor do I reject any "guilt" by association with my Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters. At the same time, I want to be sure that I clearly state my intent to own my Christian past--especially the Seven Councils. The Orthodox certainly don't need li'l ol' me as their apologete. They've done it well enough on their own.

Now I know that some are chary of dogma, fearing it's divisive qualities. But truth divides. That's just how reality works. We may not be able to know everything infallibly, but there are things we can know certainly. Without dogma, Christians lose their identity. Indeed, if I understand 1 John right, they lose eternity. One either confesses Jesus as God in the flesh, or one does not. If one does not, one is not a Christian. That's John, not Clifton. Dogma is necessary.

But there is a difference between dogma and "pious opinion." And I suppose that's where the messiness of all these divisions come in. Some want to espouse their private interpretations at the expense of unity. This is where I think the Councils are a necessary tool of unity. I know, I know, as a good Protestant-raised Christian, I shouldn't be saying that. But I've seen how well sola scriptura works--it don't. We're always adding to Scripture. I suppose I want to lobby--for the sake of unity--for a tool that was once the common measurement of fellowship, the Councils. Maybe it hasn't worked since AD 1054. But maybe that's not the fault of the Councils.

Tripp (and Justin in the comments box) rightly keep us grounded in the simplicity of the faith. Justin rather modestly asserts that the discussion we've been engaged in on the Church and salvation is a bit beyond him. I thought I'd comment, since this is germane to my words on dogma yesterday.

Tripp writes:

I'm not sure whether or not Catholics, Protestants, and--perhaps--Orthodox are guilty of "lording salvation" but our Lord himself gave to Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. While that doesn't mean Peter literally stands and checks off names at the "Pearly Gates" it minimally means Peter and the other apostles, and through their ministry the Church, do get to clarify the Gospel. Would that we could have stayed so simple as Tripp suggests. But those darn Gnostics, Arians, Sabellians, and the lot, screwed things up for us all. The Church had to rise to meet their challenge and clarify, further explain, just what the Gospel meant. Thus the Councils were mostly about the person of Christ, who he was and what he did. (Yes, clarification on the Spirit and Mary were thrown in as well.)

I hear Justin's frustration. Although my educational training makes these sorts of discussions like a pharmaceutical high, there are points at which I sure wish you could just boil things down to those proverbial four spiritual laws. But life won't let us do that.

This is why these attempts to summarize things by way of a single verse is finally impossible. John 3:16 is indeed a divine summary. But to exclude the witness of 1 John is to fail to uphold the whole truth. The Resurrection of our Lord does indeed transform all reality, especially, for us, human reality. But that transformation, by our Lord's own words, will involve, as a human reality, a weeping and gnashing of teeth. Gnostic or no, the Johannine community was exhorted to exclude and not give hospitality to those who denied the faith (2 John). We humans frequently do a nice job of screwing up the balance. But we do not serve God or the truth when we emphasize either damnation or salvation to the exclusion of the other.
Tripp's humility is something we need--excuse me, I need--to continuously choose to enact. Salvation is, ultimately for us humans, a mystery, and in the very capable hands of God. However things turn out, we need have no fear that God will not be both merciful and just. He is good and loves us.

Easter 2001 was to have been a glorious excursion into the Orthodox celebration of the world's greatest event. Unfortunately there was one little fact Anna and I did not know: Orthodox Easter (Pascha) begins about 10:00pm Saturday night and runs till about 4:00am Sunday morning. We thought by showing up in the vicinity of 7:00am-ish we'd make the "sunrise" service.

Out of luck due to indavertent ignorance, we eventually found our way to a local church of Christ (almost the only Stone-Campbell/Restorationist representation in the Chicago area). This church of Christ was a capella--no instruments. And also not a lot of anything else.

As many of you may know, but in case you don't, all Orthodox--even if they follow the Gregorian (or modern) calendar for the non-movable feasts--utilize by canonical fiat the Julian calendar to calculate Easter. The Julian calendar is about two weeks behind the current Gregorian calendar, and when you factor in the cycles of the moon, the differences in when Easter is celebrated can be several weeks.

In 2001, in one of those rare, and thus precious, cyclical patterns, Easter just happened to be celebrated at the same time by all Christian churches. So Anna and I went to the church of Christ hopeful. Here was a chance to reconnect with one of our heritage churches, and a chance to have some celebratory solidarity with our brother and sister Christians around the world.

Alas such was not the case. The only reference to Easter was made by the song leader about half-way through the song service when he said, "We don't need to celebrate Easter today because we celebrate it every Sunday." I wanted to say, "If this is how you do it every Sunday, then you don't celebrate it very well." In my great disappointment and ache, I would have felt justified, too. But I held my tongue, and tried to hold my anger in check. Needless to say, Anna and I have not been back.

The other most obvious lacks were an absence of almost all Christian ornamentation. There was a gold cross on the altar, and there were stained glass windows (which did not depict any pictorial scenes), but I cannot recall anything else except light colored wood and bare white walls. In what now does not seem too-surprising conformity, the sermon was primarily intellectual, about what we should understand of certain matters. There may have been some ethical application, but this did not stay with me. I had not worshipped in one of my heritage churches for a few years, but it was certainly familiar. This was my heritage. Admit nothing which cannot be proven from Scripture.

I don't recall any overt heresy, or non-Christian doctrine, taught at the church of Christ we visited. One may be guarded to some degree (though not completely) by sola scriptura. But then again, the silence may have spoken more to that. On that, more in a moment.

By way of contrast, today, I was struck by the incredibly tangible nature of Orthodox worship. I went to Matins and Divine Liturgy at All Saints again. Incense was thick. Candles were kissed and lit. People bowed, kissed icons, crossed themselves, tasted the body and blood of our Lord. Pregnant mothers had stoles laid across their heads, and hands placed on their head in blessing. Children were held and blessed. Blessed bread (the antidoron) was consumed. Some parishioners would take the antidoron home to use in their own homely liturgies. Everywhere language flowed like rivers of warm oil. Any chance to worship and glorify the Trinity is a good one, and many are programmed in the Liturgy. Saints relics were in the altar as the elements were consecrated. Crosses and Gospel books were kissed, as were the hands of the priests. The sermon was about time and eternity--intellectual topics to be sure--but mostly about how Christians sanctify time at transitions: Prayers are to be prayed, particularly the Our Father, at dawn, third hour, noon, ninth hour, evening; and, most gloriously, the Divine Liturgy on Sunday, the eighth day. This dates back to the New Testament and the book of Acts.

Surely my account is biased in feeling, but not in fact. Which service believed in the Incarnation? Or, perhaps more fairly, at which service was such belief most clearly in evidence?

1 At this time of the Christmas feast (only a week of the feast left!), and with a pregnant wife, it surely is no wonder that the Incarnation is at the forefront of my mind.

I love my heritage churches. I take them with me always. But while there is something attractive about the simplicity and "purity" of minimalist Christianity, in the end, for me, it leaves me feeling empty. And it takes me dangerously close to Gnosticism, which denigrates the physical for the exaltation of the spiritual. In the end, however, by divorcing the spiritual and the physical, however naively and unintended, one is left with an ugly monstrosity that has little to do with how I live in the present now. Some people like that--or think they do. But the void created by this divorce has to be filled somehow, and so we quite instinctively turn back to things, but things left unconsecrated. In our technologically advanced age that means we are left with godless consumerism. We turn again to things to fill the void. But unless the physical is sanctified, by the Spirit and by prayer, we only pile emptiness on emptiness.

And in so doing, we lose our souls.

Christ is born to us. Glory to God in the highest.

Jeff continues the dialogue on salvation and the Church. He writes:

Now, earlier in his blog, Jeff describes profession in Christ in terms of baptism and notes that baptism incorporates us into the Church. All well and good.

The question I have for Jeff, however, is: Is one's incorporation into the Body of Christ primarily confessional or is it primarily sacramental? Is it both? But if it is both, then the follow up question is: What is the Church? Is it a confessional body? Is it a sacramental body? Is it both? Or are sacrament and confession not constitutive of the Church but constituted by the Church? That is to say, does the Church guard the sacrament and confession, or do sacrament and confession guard the Church? If it is the former, then can one ultimately shrug and say, "It's more complicated than this?" or is this a matter about which we can have certain, if not exhaustive, knowledge? If sacrament and confession constitute the Church, then a) what does this do to the Church as Christ's Body, and b) what is to prevent one from starting one's own church, as is often the case among us Protestants?

To clarify my line of questioning a bit more: Does Jeff's line of argument make of the Church a juridical entity, just more fuzzy around the edges than some exclusivists want to say? If so--and I do not assume an affirmative answer to the question--how are we to understand the New Testament assertion that the Church is the Body of Christ, which entails an incarnate historical continuity?

Like Jeff, I have been thinking about how we can tell where the true Church is--though we cannot say where it is not--and have come to some penultimate conclusions. (Note: I'm currently composing an essay on this and hope to post it prior to the start of the semester on 13 January.)

It seems that the criteria for discerning where the Church is will revolve around two foci: historical continuity with the New Testament Church and doctrinal continuity with the New Testament Church.

This, to me, seems the most easily ascertainable, insofar as what criteria we should have. In actuality, there is only one criterion here: the living Tradition of the Church. But that Tradition is expressed authoritatively in three ways. First, Scripture. Though I do subscribe to the notion that Scripture arose out of the Tradition, nonetheless, it is the God-breathed quality of the Scripture which gives it an authority by which other aspects of the Tradition can be measured. Secondly, in conformity to "the apostles' doctrine," are the Ecumenical Councils of the Church. Though I used to believe that the Councils were often contrary to Scripture, that was a belief based on huge ignorance. I have since come to understand the "seamless" consistency of the Councils with the Scripture. The Councils make plain, particularly in light of specific heresies, what is the Gospel message of the Scriptures. Though there are only seven Ecumenical Councils, which "ended" due to the historical contingencies of the Schism, they are the common heritage of all Christians (including us Protestants), and if we would claim ourselves in communion with the New Testament Church, it makes sense that we must espouse the dogmatic decrees of the Councils. Thirdly, and finally, the Liturgy of the Church is our other doctrinal compass. By Liturgy I mean, just as is the case with the Councils, the inherited Liturgy of the Church. Since the Schism there has developed a great divergence in the liturgies of the various church groups. To the degree that these liturgies represent, in part, the unified tradition (while admitting some local variations) of the Liturgy, they may share in the dogmatic formation of our theology. (Some of the current liturgies in ECUSA, and other church groups, however, are heretical and dangerous.)

With regard to historical continuity, once again, there is one criterion, the Living Church as constituted by the Eucharist. Now as has been clearly shown since Ignatius of Antioch this Eucharistic constitution has two modes: apostolic genealogy and Eucharistic fellowship. By apostolic genealogy, I primarily mean those churches who can trace historical descent from the apostles. Either a church was founded by the apostles or by their representatives, and continued within the descent from the apostles through further valid charismatically appointed leaders. This tracing is seen in the tradition of apostolic succession. However, apostolic succession, as understood in tactile, or juridical terms, is more than just tracing parentage. Apostolic succession is a charism that demands not only the incarnated manifestation of Christ's ministry in the ordination and consecration of Church leaders, but demands fidelity to the deposit of the faith, dogmatic and canonical.

But valid ordinations and consecrations and adherence to dogma is not complete without Eucharist communion. Schism is different from heresy in that schism arises either from an imbalance in dogmatic faith, or in moral failures of leadership (failure in maintaining philia). One may pass the "test" of knowledge of the faith, but unless one lives it consistently, one's Eucharistic fellowship will be impaired. This criterion alone, of course, cannot determine the true Church, since communion among the churches has been impaired since the Schism. But it is to say, that once one has determined where the true Church is, if one is not in communion with it, one cannot claim to be that Church.

It seems to me then that one can utilize these criteria, as a whole, and come to some understanding of where the Church is. However, I should strongly and emphatically state that no one can use this to determine where the Church isn't. God's grace is bigger than us all. We do well to pursue it wholeheartedly.

Jeff's blog on Saturday finally pulled the cover off the discussion. We now move from the so-called "theoretical" to "street-level."

And Jeff doesn't pull punches He not only pulls out the heavy artillery (to mix my metaphors)--Paul--but pulls out one of the very texts I have utilized in my discussions about the unity of the Church. Yep. We're talkin' down and dirty street tactics, all right. (Yes, yes. This is already sounding a bit on the cheesy side o' things, but humor me, if you will. Even if mine is very minimal.)

Okay, we all know the text Jeff used was from 1 Corinthians 12.1ff. I won't cite it, since you can either read the passage on Jeff's blog, or look it up in your own Bible. Now, I want to stress here: Paul was talking about the one Body. Yes, plurality of gifts--since there was apparently some jockeying around concerning the more spectacular gifts--is what Paul is emphasizing. But plurality and diversity are not Paul's point. Check out the letter in its entirety--and chapter 12 is a microcosm of sorts of the whole letter--and the point Paul is making is crystal clear: There is one and only one Body of Christ.

Now, let's take a look at Jeff's points in that context.

Jeff writes: The apostle might frown on our dogmatic discussion over who has the claim to the true church . . .
But is that right? Paul deplores the schisms among the Corinthian Christians, that is assuredly the case. But were the schismatics claiming to be the true Church, or emphasizing individual persons over others? Okay, it might be they were claiming it by implication, but let's at least emphasize that Paul deplored the schisms over charismatic leaders. Still, even if these folks were basically claiming to be the true Church (or the best Christians, or what have you), did Paul actually deplore the dogmatic discussion over the true Church? He says earlier (1 Corinthians 11.19), that he supposed there must be divisions (lit. "heresies" or perhaps "dissensions") among them, so that those who were genuine might be known. Apparently, there were false ones among the Corinthian Christians, and it was important to know true from false.

Jeff goes on: Maybe we need to look a little harder at the feet and the hands, perhaps take a closer look and judge by the fruits of the spirit and not by what we feel is incorrect dogma. Not to say that we can throw out creeds and sacraments . . . but just maybe if we took the Apostles letter to Corinth with a little more seriousness we might just have our hand forced, maybe.
Now, for the good solid Anglo-Catholic Jeff is--and he's right, you know, the High Mass (West) and Divine Liturgy (East) are really the only way to worship!--I fear that gatherings around champagne and lemon chiffon cake have upset his normal rapier wit. He almost, but not quite, divorces dogma from life. Yes, he sneaks it back in just after stating his point. And I think it's because, good ol' A-C boy that he is, he just will not throw out the wet baby, irrespective of soiled bath water.

Fact of the matter, as Jeff knows, our feelings do not determine the correctness or error of dogma. If a dogma is incorrect, it is wrong. All the hopeful feelings in the world (and outside it) will not make it any more true. By the same token, if a dogma is right, all our rationalizations and all our accumulated attempts at "experiencing the other" will not make it any less right.

Similarly, all the most moral of lives lived will not testify to the truth of a falsehood. If it is false, for example, to ordain women to the priesthood, all the most excellent skills of ministry, preaching and pastoring will not make the practice true. Similarly, if an all-male priesthood is true, all the bigoted, oppressive, and otherwise "asshole"-type behavior will not make the dogma false. At best, in the former case, it will make most winsome and attractive a lie. In the latter case, it will make ugly a truth--or, more accurately, it will pervert the truth, for one cannot believe truth and practice falsehood (and make no mistake, bigotry and oppression are an evil falsehood). In both these cases, truth is lost to a lie. And worse: lives are lost to the demonic. Because Satan is the father of lies.

Jeff ends by asking: [C]an we really limit Christianity to just those two [i.e., Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches] in light of Paul?
Well, yes . . . if either or both are the one true Church. Refer to my comments above: Paul's point is that the plurality of members in the Body testify to the unity of that Body. There were schisms, and there were some claiming minimally to be better Christians, but these did not negate that there was a genuine (one, true) Church which could be discerned.

With one last parting shot, Jeff avows: But I can't write off my Pentecostal or Free Church brothers and sisters that easily. I can say I feel they miss out on wonderful aspects of Christ, but they could say the same of me.
Well, of course, one can always trade barbs. But one need not write off anybody while claiming that "Here" (wherever "here" is) "is the one Church." That's a logical fallacy. God's grace is mightier than our understanding and our machinations. By claiming that the Church can be found in a particular spot (or spots), it does not logically obligate one to say that "There the Church is not." It's a case of what one knows and what one does not know. One may know that this entity is the one, true Church. It does not follow that one then knows which entity (or entities) are not the Church. In short, if we may take a typical Orthodox response: "We Orthodox claim to be the one Church of Jesus Christ. But God is not limited in his grace to act only within the 'borders' of the Orthodox Church. Thus, he may claim as members of his Church, those outside the Orthodox faith. That is something we cannot know. What we can know is that the Orthodox Church is the one Church of God." [Note: I'm repeating what I have read and overheard from Orthodox. However, Orthodox readers of this blog, may want to correct me, since I'm not Orthodox.]

Now, as you can see, this hardly ends the discussion. In fact, what I hope it does is keep the question back on the table. Hopefully Jeff, whose classes start up again soon, will be able to keep me thinking about these matters through his high-caliber blog.

A blessed Epiphany to everyone!

© 2002-2003 Clifton D. Healy

Return to Clifton's Writing Page

Return to Clifton's Page