Where Is the Church?

An Exploration of Criteria

by

Clifton D. Healy

As I have noted in previous essays, after the most important question one may ask--"Who is Jesus?"--the next most important is, "What, or Who, is the Church?" In the previous two essays (The Church is One and Visible and The Church: The Body of Christ and Our Being), I have attempted to fill out the answer to that latter question. But having asked, "Who is the Church?", one is inevitably led to ask, "Where is the Church?" In this essay, I will wrestle with the criteria one may utilize in finding an answer to that question.

This is a difficult prospect to say the least. It is not as though there are no criteria that one can discern from Scripture. We have already noted several in our previous essays. And though, as I will acknowledge momentarily, selecting criteria is challenging because so fraught with self-justification, still, such a task is not impossible. Of course, it is likely that one will not always be able to come to definitive conclusions. This is understood from the beginning. We are, after all, fallible humans, without the ability to know everything that must be known to make an infallible judgment regarding discerning where the Church is in particular cases. This is certainly challenging, and one needing heavy amounts of humility, but again it is not inherently prohibitive of such a quest.

No, rather, the most difficult thing about truly trying to answer the question "Where is the Church?" is the very fact that the answer can be known, at least in part. That is to say, it is not the knowledge, per se, but what one must then do with that knowledge, that makes this whole project so challenging. Truth, and knowing the truth, entails responsibility to act in ways consistent with and in conformity to it. This will become evident as I reach my conclusions.

Perhaps the most difficult aspect of the task of determining where the one, visible Church is, revolves around the issue of criteria. Clearly, one can set the terms of the debate in such a way so as to come to predetermined conclusions. Obviously, integrity and truth lead us away from this path. On the other hand, neither can one come to the debate absent presuppositions; presuppositions which will influence the sort of criteria one accepts. The purpose here is not so much to conclude which group is (or which groups are) in reality the one true Church, but to set out plausible criteria that will enable one to determine that for oneself.

The traditional understanding of the Church as "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic" are useful markers, to say the least. In previous essays, I have explored the Church’s unity, its "visibility" (in terms of its catholicity as being the Body of Christ), and it’s salvific aspects (in terms of it being that holiness of Christ in and through which we are saved). Here I wish to explore what we might term the Church’s apostolicity (both historically and doctrinally).

In light of that, it seems to me that there are two foci of criteria by which we may attest to a group being the one true Church: historical continuity and doctrinal continuity.

The first focus is historical continuity. This historical continuity must involve some sense of apostolic geneaology, and its twin corollary Eucharistic fellowship in and through the bishop. One might argue for more criteria under this heading, but it seems to me that these are enough to base a standard of measurement.

First, as to historical continuity I mean simply that understanding that a church stands in an unbroken temporal succession to the Church one finds in the New Testament. The most obvious reason for this requisite assumption are Jesus’ own words in Matthew 16:18, that the gates of Hades would not prevail against his Church. The Church, because it is constituted by the Spirit as the Body of Christ, is eternal. But this eternality presently exists in continuous earthly temporal succession. If the Church were to cease to be, it would have been overcome by Hades, the gates of death. Christ’s Resurrection is the guarantee that Hades will not prevail against the Church, and therefore, the Church must exist in unbroken succession from Pentecost into eternity.

Furthermore, one must assume an historical continuity in the Church if one takes seriously the Incarnation and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and of the union between the Church and the Trinity. The Incarnation and Resurrection redeemed the created order and sanctified embodied existence. Thus the Church, as the Body of Christ, must be an entity that similarly partakes of embodied existence. Therefore it must exist in space and time, and have an historical existence; at least prior to the Parousia. The Incarnation and Resurrection ensure, in part, embodied existence. By the same token, however, through Christ, the Church is made a partaker of the divine nature. By virtue of the deathless life given the Church by grace, the Church is continuous in her existence. She cannot, due to the fullness of Christ which fills her, perish. So the Church is not merely a club of affiliated believers, but is, rather, the Body of Christ, and must have historical continuity with the Church of the New Testament, because it is the same Church.

Secondly, then, it makes sense that some sort of continuity, historically, with the Apostles must be one important aspect of a church’s claim to being the (or a part of the) one true Church. The Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ, himself being the chief cornerstone. Part of this historical continuity involves some understanding of what has come to be known as apostolic succession. Though some have defined apostolic succession in terms of tactile descent--that is to say, each bishop in the chain of succession was validly consecrated by bishops who themselves were validly consecrated all the way back to the Twelve--it seems to me that too rigid an application of this definition creates irresolvable problems. For example, what of all those that heretical patriarchs and popes ordained to the diaconate and priesthood, ordinands who themselves did not participate in the heresies of their ordainers? Furthermore, what of those discrepancies and lacunae which we know exist in the genealogies of apostolic descent? If we cannot conclusively prove tactile apostolic succession in each and every case, does this invalidate the ministries of any and all those who descend from such potentially questionable lines? That need not be the logical conclusion, but the question must be raised.

By the same token, however, one need not go to the juridical extremes just noted to also hold apostolic succession important. Apostolic succession is solidly based on Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 3. There is no other foundation on which one can build the Church. Therefore, some sort of traceable descent which can be historically discerned to have come from the Apostles is by necessity at least implied. How else can one claim to be part of the Church if one cannot claim an historical linkage to the Apostles?

Ultimately, however, lines of descent are not enough. This sole focus on juridical concerns as a means of validation of one’s ecclesial legitimacy ultimately denigrates the importance of doctrinal continuity (as I will discuss below), but more importantly neglects the charismatic importance of Eucharistic fellowship in and through the bishop. As I have shown in another essay (The Church: The Body of Christ and Our Being), we only participate in Christ as members of the Church. It is not in us as individuals that the fullness of Christ dwells, but as members of the Church. As Paul shows us in 1 Corinthians 10, we participate in Christ, as the Church participates in the body and blood of the Eucharist. Thus the Eucharistic fellowship of the Church is the foundation of any sort of historical continuity with the Church. Historical continuity then, is founded on the charismatic reality of the Eucharist.

But as Ignatios of Antioch has clearly pointed out, the validity of the Eucharist rests in part on the presidency of the bishop. It is thus in the charismatic gift of episcopal consecration, which itself derives from the charism of the Eucharist, that one may trace apostolic genealogy. The twin realities of a bishop in apostolic succession, whose ministry derives from the mystery of the Eucharist, and the charismatic fellowship of the Eucharist in which the Church, with all its members, partakes of the fullness of Christ, are those realities which determine historical continuity with the New Testament Church, because it is one and the same Church.

The second focus for which I will argue must be doctrinal continuity. This focus is perhaps the most difficult to formulate without simply establishing one’s own doctrinal convictions as the criteria. Be that as it may, doctrinal continuity seems to me to necessitate some foundation on and in the living Tradition of the Church. This Tradition, I will argue, includes three important factors: Scripture, the ecumenical Councils of the Church, and the Liturgy.

The importance of doctrinal continuity generally ought to be clear. If one believes that the Church has, indeed been founded on the Apostles with Christ being the chief cornerstone, then one would aspire to conformity with the Apostles’ teaching, as was the life of the Church in Acts 2:42. More to the point, however, is the unity of Truth. A doctrine cannot have been true in the New Testament Church but is now false today. Similarly, if a doctrine was false (and therefore a heresy) in the New Testament Church, then it is false (and a heresy) today. (I am not here referring to an application of a doctrine which may, due to historical and social change, reflect the truth of the doctrine in different ways.)

This dogmatic body of truth was not merely handed down by dictation from God nor by human authority intent on solidifying its power. Rather, clearly doctrine is both taken from and exemplified in Scripture, as well as the Church Councils (though this in itself is a complicated subject), and the Liturgy of the Church. In both Israel and the Church, Scripture is the preeminent written record of God’s revelation. But as Scripture itself shows, God’s Truth is also made known in Church Council (cf. Acts 15). Furthermore, in Leviticus and the Psalms, and as importantly, in the Philippian hymn and the Revelation to John, Scripture also shows the revelation of God’s Truth in worship and liturgy.

It should be apparent why Scripture is one aspect of doctrinal continuity. The Old Testament (specifically, the Septuagint, or Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures), was the Bible of the early Christians. Very soon, however, the authoritative records of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, what we now have as our four Gospels, God’s revelation in the Church, which comprises the history presented in the Acts of the Apostles, and the remaining epistles (including the Revelation given to John), were added to the Old Testament and treated as inspired on the same level as and as the fulfillment of the Old Testament. The Gospels, the Acts and epistles were, in God’s wisdom, the essential documents of the salvation God wrought in Jesus Christ and through the Church. Since these documents were penned by Apostles, or their disciples, the apostolic teaching contained in them provided the doctrinal continuity in written form necessary for the second, third and following generations of Christians down to our day.

In conservative evangelical and fundamentalist circles, Scripture is typically thought to be the sole authoritative source of doctrine. Only Scripture can lay claim to God-breathedness, inspiration, and therefore, only Scripture has the authority to set doctrine. Or so is the claim. The difficulty is that no one can come to Scripture without presuppositions. Scripture is not for Everyman to interpret. Scripture is the Church’s Book, and one must be a member of the Church, whose mind and heart has been formed by the Church, to adequately understand it. This is not to imply that modern hermeneutical methods have no value to the Church. Clearly they do. But it is to say that Christians cannot be guided by hermeneutical mindsets antithetical to the Faith if they wish to interpret Scripture faithfully and accurately.

The Councils clearly show why this is the case. The Arian controversy was not simply a matter of pagan infiltration into Church theology. Rather, it was, in part, a controversy over Scriptural interpretation. Arius’ teaching was deemed heresy, not because he couldn’t validate his claims hermeneutically, but because his teaching was not in line with the thinking of the Church. Thus, after several decades, the small minority led by Athanasius won out over the followers of Arius. The mind of the Church had made clear what Scripture meant. The Church Councils did not rewrite Scripture. They interpreted it correctly.

In this way, the Councils foster unity by presenting the boundaries of acceptable Christian thought. The Councils, contrary to popular understanding, do not set out point by point every belief that one should have by God. Rather, they point out those beliefs one may not have about God, Christ, the Spirit and Mary and still remain a Christian. This is apophatic belief. By staking out the negatives, they leave room for kataphatic reflection. So, Christians may have legitimate diversity of belief, but only insofar as the dogmatic bounds of what we may not believe dictate. In this way, the Councils clarify that which is obscure in Scripture, and further the continuity with apostolic teaching.

Finally, of the three sorts of doctrinal continuity for which I am arguing, liturgy is in many ways the most neglected in the evangelical Protestant world generally. If the phrase lex orendi, lex credendi (loosely, "what you pray is what you believe") is plausible, then what and how a group worships is, to say the least, important. Some Protestant groups are beginning to pick up on this and are returning to an understanding of Liturgy as a source of belief and practice.

The Church’s Liturgy, if it is true, must be in doctrinal continuity with the Apostles. That is to say, it must be consistent with Scripture and the Councils. Historically, of course, Liturgy came first. Liturgy was the expression of the apostolic faith in the Church’s worship, before there was Scripture or Church Councils. And Liturgy, with Scripture, helped to provide the limits within which Councils set beliefs. In that respect, then, the immersion in Liturgical cadences, words, and rhythms helped shape the hearts and minds of believers so that they read Scripture aright and lived it faithfully. So, in essence, Christians do not create liturgies, they receive the Liturgy the Church has given.

While it is true that the Church’s Eucharistic Liturgy developed over time, its form was set by the fourth and fifth centuries. The great Eucharistic canon was set, as were the largest pieces (the various supplications and thanksgivings) by the second century, with the final developments in the fourth and fifth centuries. Various hymns and prayers were added, reflecting the rhythms of the year, the lives of the saints, and some of the historical contingencies of the Church throughout the world and history, but these were, if you will, components of the Liturgy. It is this fixed nature of the Liturgy, along with its continuity with apostolic belief that provided its unifying effects.

If I have been persuasive in my argumentation thus far, then it would seem apparent that one may simply begin stacking up various groups alongside these criteria and discerning whether they measure up or not. Of course, that is the purpose of having criteria.

So, for example, one may take one’s own group, in my own instance, the Stone-Campbell churches, and ask: Do they exhibit historical or doctrinal continuity with the Church of the Apostles? One could discern what, if any, historical connections the Stone-Campbell churches have with the apostles, whether these churches have a Eucharist and are in fellowship with the Church of the Apostles, whether their beliefs are in line with the Scriptures, the Councils, and the Liturgy of the Church. There may well be no clear and definitive answers to these questions in every case, and--one thing which I have not explored--one would have to determine the weight one gives to various criteria. If, for example, the liturgy of the Stone-Campbell churches lacks conformity with that of the early Church, does that necessarily imply a doctrinal deficiency, and if so, is such a deficiency automatically disqualifying? Still and all, despite the difficulty of definitive answers to each and every criteria, one may sense a sort of consistency of answer that would justify a conclusion in line with that consistency.

There is, however, a very grave danger here. That is, that one may make of criteria which ought to partake of and reveal the charism of the Holy Spirit and turn them into the sort of legalistic juridicalism which has plagued the Church since the New Testament. These criteria are not intended to indicate that a group is not the Church. God’s gracious acts are a mystery, and the Church, being both brought forth by grace and an instrument of grace, cannot be analyzed and broken down in such a way as to infallibly determine all its ingredients, their proportions, and origins. Just as a map is not intended to tell one where a place is not, but rather is intended to show one where a place is, so these criteria are intended only to enable one with confidence to point to the one true Church and know that when one says, "Here it is," one may rest assured such is indeed the case.

With this essay, I am now able to bring to a conclusion, the journey I began more than twelve years ago. I had thought that in many ways, that for which I was searching I had found in the Anglican tradition. I had thought that I had found a church with historical pedigrees tracing back to the Apostles. I had thought that I had found a church within which my beliefs could be lived and fostered. I found, almost too late, that not only was this not the case, but that those sort of criteria are not helpful. It was as though trying to navigate the present contiguous territory of the United States with a map pre-dating Lewis and Clark.

After much thought and reflection, the way forward seems to me clear. A new journey must now commence.

© 2003 Clifton D. Healy

Return to What I Have Learned