Anglican/Orthodox Pilgrim Newsletter
Vol. 2, No. 4
WHITHER THE "BRANCH THEORY"?
by Fr. Gregory Mathewes-Green
Note: If articles carried warning labels this one would alert the reader that its contents, while
meant to be thought-provoking, are not the result of top calibre academic research, being but the ponderings of a parish priest.)
I doubt that many Confirmation or Inquirer's Classes speak
about it much any more (except perhaps in some of the more
hard-core Anglo-Catholic parishes-that rapidly vanishing variety
in the species Anglicana) but for several
generations the reigning ecclesiology in many Episcopal parishes,
including numbers of mid-church parishes, was called the
"branch theory". Or at least this theory was an
important adjunct. The universally respected Oxford Dictionary
of the Christian Church gives this definition of the
"branch theory:" the theory that, though the Church may
have fallen into schism within itself and its several provinces
or groups of provinces be out of communion with each other, each
may yet be a "branch" of the one Church of Christ,
provided that it continues to hold the faith of the original
undivided Church and to maintain the Apostolic Succession of its
bishops. Such, it is contended by many Anglican theologians, is
the condition of the Church at the present time, there being now
three main branches, the Roman, the Eastern, and the Anglican
Communions..."
As an aside it should be noted that the major theoretician of
this approach to ecclesiology was William Palmer (1803-1885), the
Oxford theologian and liturgical scholar, and not, as many
suppose, John Henry Newman. Palmer's two-volume Treatise on
the Church of Christ (1838) formulated the notion,
recapitulated in the above OCDC quote, that, provided that
both 1) the Succession, and 2) the Faith of the Apostles are kept
intact, then there the Church exists, albeit in one of its
"branches".
Interestingly, though this understanding of ecclesiology was
to permeate much of Anglicanism, at least of the mid- to high-
church persuasions, it initially attracted little attention from
the Oxford Fathers. Marvin R. O'Connell writes in his The
Oxford Conspirators: A History of the Oxford Movement 1833-1845
(MacMillan, 1969) that Newman greeted Palmer's Treatise
"...with faint praise. Palmer was dismissed."
Several points need to be made at this juncture. First, there
is the undeniable fact that Anglicanism as an ecclesiastical
structure had already been around for almost 300 years before
there was any formulation of the "branch" theory. And
while there were no doubt some embryonic, "branch"-like
notions afloat, still it was not until almost three centuries had
passed and a catholicizing movement was emerging that needed some
theological justification for the existence of a separate English
Church that this theory arrived center stage. Apparently even
then it was not immediately and universally welcomed. But be that
as it may, there is little doubt that the "branch"
theory did take hold, and for many Anglicans gave, and gives,
catholic ecclesiological legitimacy to that body. Still, arriving
comparatively late on the scene, being balked at by at least some
Anglo-Catholics, even in the leadership, and, truthfully, having
for all practical purposes died out in the present day Anglican
teaching, the question is raised as to how such a short-lived
theory could even yet be maintained, though it is defended it
seems by an ever-decreasing number of Anglicans. It would seem
logical that its declining popularity (it's not in the 1979
catechism, nor is even its spirit present in most current
published Confirmation materials in widespread use) is evidence
of its doctrinal impotence.
What then for present day Anglicans passes for ecclesiology?
Aside from the ever-diminishing Anglo-Catholics who hold to the
"branch" theory, there are the evangelicals of several
stripes who hold to a minimalist theology of the Church. For most
of them some version of the Church as a voluntary association of
those who have accepted Christ is operative. Orders and the
ecclesial/sacramental life are negligible compared to individual
piety, with or without the Church, in this view. This is clearly
a Protestant understanding of the Church; honorable, arguably
culturally relevant, and historic (at least 500 years old), but
definitely not Catholic. The other view is that the Church is
that group of people who minister in Christ's name, and who live
out of a tradition called Christian. Here to be Catholic
(connected by Faith and Succession to the apostles) is an
irrelevant category, and unless things Catholic serve the
modernist agenda, they are dismissed.
But the question still remains in some minds: Even though its
holders may be numerically decreasing and though it may be out of
current theological fashion, is, in fact, the "branch"
theory still a sensible, valid, and theologically sound way to
legitimize Anglicanism as a part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and
Apostolic Church?
It would seem that the argument of tactile episcopal
succession in Anglicanism has been established rather well. If
there is not an air-tight case, it certainly has no more holes
than does the Roman case. On this score, that Anglican bishops
have historically been in succession to the apostles by means of
the laying on of hands, the "branch" theory seems
acceptable. However, it is when we examine the second element in
the theory that we run into a great deal of trouble. Indeed, from
several theological perspectives, including the Orthodox, this
second element is the most important ingredient of all. In most
theological encounters with Anglicans, when Anglicans would seek
Orthodox comments on the "legitimacy" of Anglican
orders, the Orthodox invariably insist on first examining
Anglicanism's theology, to determine whether or not it is
Biblical and Patristic, in short Traditional. Without being such,
say the Orthodox, then it makes little difference whose hands
were laid on whose head, how many times, in what manner, or if
incense was used. The first question to be answered is, Is the
Faith of this community recognizable to the Apostles, would the
Fathers claim it as their own, and would the martyrs find it the
very faith for which they shed blood?
From the above citation from the OCDC, we note that
the "branch" theory is said to be operative, not only
when there is a tactile apostolic succession, but also
"...provided that it continues to hold the faith of the
original undivided Church..." Thus, if the theory collapses
when this element is missing, then Anglicanism has no claim
whatever to it in the present hour. Liberal modernists, who now
control Anglican Christianity in England, America, Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and who are in the
ascendancy in the remainder of the Anglican world, are usually
forthright in their condemnation of the ancient and patristic
Faith. Certainly modernism is antithetical to beliefs such as the
bodily Resurrection of Christ, the Virgin Birth, the existence of
absolute and revealed standards of moral behavior (especially
with regard to sexual activities), or the delineation of
complementary male and female roles within the Church and family
life. The modern secular aversion to the sacramental worldview of
patristic Christianity pervades Anglicanism and creates an
ecclesiology with a social and psychological program agenda,
rather than one of simply listening to the Master's voice and
seeking to be obedient to it (for example, the commands in
Matthew 25 to serve the poor and in Matthew 28 to evangelize).
The secularization of Anglican ecclesiology has been
accomplished by jettisoning not only the Holy Scriptures but
also, and perhaps more significantly, the guide the Church had
always used to interpret the Scriptures: the Holy Fathers, those
ancient writers most widely accepted by community consensus, and
whose writings provided the Church with the necessary
interpretive frame work to comprehend Holy Write. Today, what
passes for such among Anglican powers-that-be (bishops,
seminaries, diocesan and national committees, commissions and
conventions) is typified by the Report of the Bishop's Committee
of Sexuality of the Diocese of Maryland. In this report, both
Scripture and Tradition are acknowledged as sources of authority;
but how does the report approach them? With the new interpretive
grid of modern scholarship whose current fashion is the
oppressor/oppressed model. Hence, in this particular report the
understanding of much Scripture and most Patristics are governed
by John Boswell's revisionist work, Christianity, Social
Tolerance, and Homosexuality. Consequently, the assumption is
that only those portions of the Bible and the Fathers which
support the highly questionable and selective
"findings" of contemporary social scientists are to be
respected. Thereby, divine revelation is undercut and the
secularization of theology guaranteed. "...To hold the faith
of the original undivided Church.." is a description of one
of the primary purposes of Anglicanism, or so many of us were
taught a generation ago in Church School and Confirmation classes
across the Episcopal landscape. And yet it appears that in this
one generation such a task has vanished from the agenda of the
contemporary Anglican church. Occasionally, similar language will
be employed, partly to placate traditionalists, partly to assuage
the liberal modernist conscience that still clings to such
images, but by and large it has disappeared. It is no longer
relevant, useful or true.
Thus the "branch" theory no longer commands
attention and theological weight. If it were ever a valid theory,
nailing down Anglicanism's claims to legitimately manifest the
Catholic Church in a certain place and time, it no longer is.
But let's ask another, perhaps even more important question.
Granted that the "branch" theory has collapsed because
of the failure of Anglicanism to uphold both of its essential
elements, nevertheless, what may we say of the strength of the
theory before the fall of Anglicanism to modernism? Several
points need here to be made.
First, the fact that Anglicanism has fallen into heresy and
apostasy is itself evidence that, even if the "branch"
theory were valid, Anglicanism is not and was not one of the
branches - probably not since the East-West split and certainly
not since the Reformation. A community's apostolicity is
evidenced in that it continues to hold the apostolic Faith. There
may be from time to time theological ferment and heated doctrinal
debate, but when the time comes for decisionmaking, that
community which is apostolic insists on fidelity to that received
Tradition. Anglicanism is presently not such a community.
Second, the Holy Scriptures know nothing of the
"branch" theory. The early "branch"
theoreticians made much of the fact that the earliest people of
God consisted of twelve tribes, and, at times, two nations,
Israel and Judah. But this ignores the fact that Christ
established the new people of God through the twelve apostles,
pre-figured in the tribes, bound together in visible communion
under the headship of Christ Himself. Whatever the Old Covenant
configuration may have been, Christ's intention for the Church of
the New Covenant is clear: visible unity expressed through
mutually recognized ministerial orders, Eucharistic fellowship,
doctrinal agreement, and adherence to Christ's lordship. This
Church is exhibited on the pages of the New Testament and, today,
subsists in Holy Orthodoxy. In so far as "branches" are
recognized in the Bible, they are, as in St. John 15, individual
believers, not Churches who are not in communion with one another
and who hold conflicting theologies.
Similarly, Holy Tradition knows nothing of such a theory. In
the early Church, there were schisms from the Church, but
not within the Church. The Fathers wrestled deeply with
the implications of schism and, of course, the famous cases of
how to handle returning former schismatics, but clearly
acknowledged schism as a breaking with the Church, not the
establishing of a "branch".
In the end then, we find the "branch" theory to be
theologically defective, resting as it does on a non-Biblical,
non-Patristic ecclesiology, very late in development and believed
by a minority of those for whom it was devised. This is not at
all to say that Anglicans could not be holy, or be recipients of
God's grace, or indeed be considered Christians. On the contrary,
many men and women of exemplary devotion and holiness have
inhabited the house of Anglicanism; the beauty of traditional
Anglican worship is deservedly legendary; its often inspiring
architecture is grace in stone; and its teachers, preachers,
poets, and writers, when at their best, have engaged intellect
with heartfelt imagination in the service of the Gospel. For all
of that and more, we thank God. But, to say this is not the same
thing as affirming the "branch" theory, but instead it
is to acknowledge the work of God, even beyond the Catholic and
Apostolic Church, and to express gratitude. And yet one would be
remiss in not saying that authentically traditional Anglicans,
formerly bolstered by such things as the "branch"
theory, would find all that they love in Anglicanism and which is
reflective of the classic Christianity of the first millennium to
be at its fullest and most authentic in Holy Orthodoxy.
Many people, myself included, told themselves for years that
when Anglicanism came to its theological senses it would
acknowledge its true heart and center, its Catholic identity.
We have the privilege of living at the time when the true
heart of Anglicanism has been revealed, and it has turned out to
be not Catholic but liberal protestant. For many, again including
me, that is a painful discovery. And yet, God being the
death-to-life transformer, this painful situation can also be the
occasion for finding our way to that to which the best in
Anglicanism points, our true home, the Holy Orthodox Church.
Fr. Gregory and his wife Frederica are former Episcopalians.
He is now pastor of Holy Cross Orthodox Mission, Baltimore, MD.)
PROBLEMS OF ECCLESIOLOGY BETWEEN ANGLICANS AND ORTHODOX IN THE DUBLIN AGREED STATEMENT (1984)
by Fr. John Daly
There is much to celebrate in the Agreed Statement between
Anglicans and Orthodox which was the result of the 1984 Dublin
meeting. There is a commonness of vision in many places and a
great deal of mutual respect conveyed in areas of disagreement.
this is cause for hope in future dialogues.
However, the sometimes profound areas of disagreement in our
respective understanding of the Church combined with very
different parameters for dissent and disagreement within
our respective communions is evidence of how very far we still
are from anything approaching reunion. Events in the Anglican
communion in the years following the Dublin meeting have only
exacerbated the situation (e.g., the "consecration" of
several women to the episcopacy; ever widening disputes between
traditionalist bishops and churchmen on the one hand, and
"radicals", on the other, about basic doctrine; the
issues surrounding human sexuality and homosexuality in
particular; the very real possibility of a major schism or series
of schisms among Anglicans worldwide as these matters reach their
climax). As we shall see, the very possibility of actually
defining an Anglican response to Orthodox apprehensions and
doubts about the authoritativeness of any such attempt were it
accomplished makes it extremely difficult for Orthodox to know who
actually speaks for Anglicanism (i.e. what distinguishes the
position of various Anglican spokespersons as authoritative
vs. mere opinion? Who decides and on what basis?). In a very real
sense, our discussion with Anglicans is a sort of "tertium
quid"—neither like the discussions with Roman Catholics nor
like those which might be had with Protestant congregationalists.
All of this, of course, is grounded fundamentally in the
ecclesiology, or lack thereof, which forms the basis of the
Anglican Communion.
Section I, para. 9, of the Dublin Agreed Statement reflects
the fundamentally different approaches to the Church between
Orthodox and Anglicans: Anglicans are accustomed to seeing our
divisions as within the Church, but they believe that they belong
to it. Orthodox, however, believe that the Orthodox Church is the
one true Church of Christ, which as his Body is not and cannot be
divided.
Though the true doctrinal position of each Church is
presented very openly here, what is not (and perhaps cannot — or
at least ought not be) set forth is the tremendous psychological
and emotional conflict between the two views. For instance, it is
extremely distressing for most Anglicans to deal with the fact
that Orthodox view them as not fully in the Church. This
perceived (and real) exclusion is especially painful when it is
contrasted with Anglican openness to intercommunion and mutual
recognition of orders. Conversely, Orthodox are often offended
and hurt when our own very deeply held convictions about the need
for unity of faith to precede any restoration of communion is
attacked as mere triumphalism or as the rejection of others as
persons. Orthodox believe that there can be no ambiguity or
compromise about Church dogma even while admitting the need to
explicate certain dogmas in a manner more intelligible to the
contemporary culture. Anglicans allow a wide expanse in the
interpretation of dogma — to the point of what appears to be
contradiction in Orthodox eyes — even while they believe that
they are continuing to affirm the catholic faith. This leads to a
real problem that can (and does) arise when both groups use the
same words to describe their faith but in vastly different
contexts.
Before exploring specifics within the main body of the
Agreement, it may be helpful to look at the summary statements
regarding the Church in the Epilogue. While we agree that the
Church is one,
holy, catholic and apostolic, we are not agreed on the
account to be given of the sinfulness and division which is to be
observed in the life of Christian communities. For Anglicans,
because the Church under Christ is the community where God's
grace is at work, healing and transforming sinful men and women;
and because grace in the Church is mediated through those who are
themselves undergoing such transformation, the struggle
between grace and sin is seen as characteristic of, rather
than accidental to, the Church on earth. Orthodox while
agreeing that the human members of the Church on earth are
sinful, do not believe that sinfulness should be ascribed to the
Church as the body of christ indwelt by the Holy Spirit"
(Epilogue, Section IV, para. 99 (d)). This paragraph alone
reveals a great deal about the quandary in which we find
ourselves when talking about the Church with Anglicans. It also
reveals how it is possible to talk to each other in the same
language, using the same vocabulary and still misunderstand each
other on the most basic level.
For example, Orthodox are often perplexed and frustrated in
theological conversations with Anglicans. It is quite easy to
find Anglicans who are very close to the Orthodox theologically,
sacramentally, and devotionally, and at the same time it is just
as easy (in fact much easier nowadays) to find Anglicans who are
so far removed from an Orthodox understanding of anything that it
is rather difficult to seriously regard them as Christian (in the
sense of confessing Jesus Christ as Lord and God, one of the
Trinity who was Incarnate in our midst). How, we Orthodox will
say, is it possible for both to exist in the same Church (often
in the same diocese, deanery, or parish)? How is it that one
bishop may for all intents and purposes deny the Virgin birth,
the Bodily Resurrection of Christ, the necessity of confessing
the Trinity alone as Godhead, the whole ethical and moral
tradition of the Church and then some, while another bishop may
strictly abide in the universal tradition of the Orthodox
Catholic Church (yes, there really are some who do!)?
If we look at what is stated in Sec. IV, para. 99 we may be
able to better understand the enigma. If the Church herself is
understood to be struggling between grace and sin, then there is
indeed a very wide room in which debate may take place. After all
if grace (and truth) are mediated (and often corrupted) through
sinful women and men, then how exactly can one ever
determine the fullness of Truth in anything before the Eschaton?
Since not only particular persons but the Body as a whole may at
times fall into error, it will be exceedingly difficult to
categorically admit the rightness or wrongness of any doctrine.
At the extreme end, this line of thinking becomes so positivistic
that everything is reduced to the perceptions and valuation of
each individual (in the fullest sense of that terrible
word!). The actual experience of doctrine as authoritative has
eroded so profoundly in some segments of Anglicanism (notably the
Churches in North America and Oceania — and with increasing
rapidity in the British Isles themselves) that new doctrinal
statements are being made without regard (or with flagrant
disregard) for the experience of the Church in the past. This is
especially so in the area of liturgical reform (e.g., inclusive
language liturgies), moral and ethical teaching (e.g.,
homosexuality, abortion, "euthanasia"), and sacramental
order (e.g., the "ordination" of women, the admission
of persons to communion from traditions which deny any
understanding of the actual presence of Christ's Body and Blood
in the eucharist), etc. This, rather harsh, critique of the
implications of Anglican ecclesiology from an Orthodox
perspective will find a mixed response at best from those who are
committed to the Anglican tradition even if they are otherwise
very close to us in their assessment of specific issues. This is
why bishops with utterly contradictory interpretations of the
faith will remain in communion with one another.
How does the Orthodox claim that "sinfulness should
(not) be ascribed to the Church as the body of Christ indwelt by
the Holy Spirit" sound in ears of many Anglicans —
especially considering that we admit that the members of the Body
may indeed by sinful? (In all fairness, one could probably find
not a few Orthodox who would also have a problem with the apparent
paradox inherent in this question.) For most Anglicans, coming
from a cultural and religious mileu (Protestant, mostly) which
takes as a given fact the idea that every institution is
fallible and which furthermore, understands the Church much more
as a "structure" than as an organism, the very idea
that dogma is immutably and eternally true — "the same
yesterday, today, and forever" — is alien and reeks of
totalitarianism and fanaticism. Once again, to be fair, history
and some of the would be spokespersons for the Church have lent
more than a little credence to such apprehensions.
However, in spite of the miscommunication and
misinterpretations of our ecclesiology by some who would
represent us, there still remains the fact that we confess
that the Church, as the Body of Christ, cannot fall into
error. The very presence of error (heresy) and confusion in the
assembly is evidence that it has departed from the fullness of
the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church." This
is hard to convey in a pluralistic culture which not only
tolerates but even "celebrates" a wide diversity of
mutually exclusive traditions. (The real depth of this
"celebration" of differences, however, often falls
short of accepting any teaching which makes absolute claims about
anything — especially when such claims call into question the
beliefs and behaviors of others).
This leads to a consideration of communion and so called
'intercommunion.' Anglicans along with Protestants in general (as
well as a not inconsiderable number of individual Roman
Catholics) regard shared communion as a means toward unity. The
sharing at the table is seen as a sign of hope for future organic
reunion. The Orthodox understanding of communion as something
which can only be shared within a community of faithful in which
there is no difference of faith (DAS, sec. I, para. 20)
bears a much closer resemblance to the sharing of the marriage
bed than it does to the prevalent notion of "table
fellowship" among Anglicans. Just as marriage is a
"closed community" when it comes to the sharing of its
most intimate form of communion so is the Church (the Bride) in
Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ (the Bridegroom). To
put it rather bluntly, the idea of sharing communion with those
outside the Orthodox Church — using the symbolism found in
Ephesians 5 and elsewhere — has as its parallels, fornication
and/or adultery in marriage. The only means of entering
into communion is through the establishment of complete unity of
faith. The image of fidelity in both the Church and within
marriage is by no means accidental.
However, when we read certain section of the Agreed Statement
concerning the marks of the Church it would appear that we are on
our way toward re-union. For instance, in DAS sec. I, para. 12,
we read a statement about catholicity of faith (as opposed to
schism and heresy) with which both Anglicans and Orthodox were in
full agreement. Once again, the actual interpretation of
the paragraph within the respective communions may not be at all
the same. Consider the statement, "If Christians cease to
love each other or to respect Church order they are in danger of
schism. If they depart from the essentials of the apostolic faith
they become guilty of heresy." (DAS, I 12). According to
Orthodox standards, Anglicans have, to varying degrees, become
both schismatics and heretics. In the matters of Church order and
in keeping of the apostolic faith (and praxis), it can be quite
fairly demonstrated that the Episcopal Church in the United
States has indeed departed from the Tradition in several areas.
Obviously, the Anglicans who agreed to the statement about
catholicity have a very different understanding of the essentials
of increasing — even as the words and concepts which fill these
agreements sound more and more harmonious.
Continuing with the same paragraph we read, "...(L)ocal
churches, in faithful response to their own particular missionary
situation, have developed a wide diversity in their life. As long
as their witness to the one faith remains unimpaired, such
diversity is to be seen, not as a deficiency or cause for both
faith and order. This terminological confusion is all the more
striking because the Agreed Statements and other Ecumenical
documents (e.g., B.E.M.) have come out at a time when the actual
doctrinal distance between the Church and the various
denominations, may, as a matter of fact, be division, but as a
mark of the fullness of the one Spirit who distributes to each
according to his will (1 Cor. 12:1)." What is meant by
diversity? Differences in ritual and ceremony have always existed
in the church; the admission of western rite Orthodox into
canonical Orthodoxy bears witness to this. However, the diversity
which is accepted — even celebrated — among Anglicans goes far
beyond ritual (i.e. ceremony). The theological understanding of
the rites and sacraments of the Church is interpreted by
Anglicans in such diverse ways as to make it impossible to
identify any one Anglican definitive, authoritative, statement
about virtually anything. (Just ask what the "Real
Presence" actually means at a gathering that includes
representatives of the various types of Anglican
"churchmanship".) Furthermore, diversity as understood
by many Anglicans (at least those who control the General
Convention of ECUSA) includes tolerance of (or acceptance of)
beliefs and behaviors which have no precedent in Christian
experience other than their identification with sin — sometimes
very grave sin. This is by no means a polemical statement. A
cursory glance at virtually any mainline (i.e. neither
reactionary nor radical) publication of the Episcopal Church USA
will show how broadly the call for respecting diverse opinions
has been interpreted — even when such opinions would have been
understood to be deeply perverted at any other time in Christian
history.
Finally, attention must be given to two additional aspects of
ecclesiology, related to one another and to everything else that
has been put forth in this paper; these aspects are Tradition and
the contemporary innovation of "ordaining" women to the
"priesthood" in several parts of the Anglican communion
(since 1989 there have also been "consecrations" of
women to the "episcopate"). Section III, para. 47,
states:
Looked at from outside, the two Churches appear to be very
different in their attitude to tradition, the Anglicans allowing
a great variety of attitude and teaching, the Orthodox being
strongly attached to the definitions and the structures of the
tradition, especially to those established in the Ecumenical
Councils and by the Church Fathers.
Not only do the two Churches appear to be very different from
the outside regarding Tradition but they appear so from the
inside as well, at least in the experience of one who has been on
the inside of both. This fundamental difference in approach to
Tradition is really connected with fundamentally different
approaches to authority in general, as we have already seen. The
fact that Anglicans, like most western Christians, believe to
some degree in the "development of doctrine" in the
sense that new and innovative doctrinal assertions may arise out
of historical experience, allows for the establishment of
practices which may (apparently) contradict what had gone before.
Were this confined to matters of "discipline" alone it might
indeed be an acceptable example of diversity but since the
changes and "developments" also touch on matters of the
"esse" of the Church (at least to the Orthodox mind)
there arises the immediate objection that the "Spirit of
Truth" Who "blows where He wills" is not a spirit
of contradiction blowing against the Church and the Holy
Tradition (which has been given to us in and through the same
Holy Spirit).
In Sec. III, para. 52 the discussion is of the "dynamic
nature of tradition" under the guidance of the Holy Spirit
and exercised with careful discrimination in the midst of the
societies and cultures in which the Church finds herself.
"The Church at the present time needs to
exercise...discrimination, remaining true to the mind (phronema)
of the Fathers and facing the new questions with which our
century confronts us", concludes the paragraph. Here again,
the way Orthodox understand the "mind of the Fathers"
and its living application to the present seems to be very
different from Anglican evaluations of the same things. Whereas
many (but by no means all) Anglicans view the
"ordination" of women to the priestly and episcopal
orders as in keeping with the "mind of the Fathers" and
faithfully facing up to the challenges of our times, the vast
majority of the Orthodox regard the move to ordain women as a
contradiction of the Church's mind and Tradition and a very rash
one at that — something which was done in response to political
and social changes in the larger culture which had more to do
with a power struggle than with the right practice (orthopraxia)
of authority.
With regard to the specific, unilateral, and sudden decision
to ordain women to priestly ministry, the Orthodox response in
the Agreed Statement (DAS IV, 102) cites contrariness to
Scripture and Tradition.
However, in a very positive way the paragraph goes on to
state the need to examine such issues as the meaning of the
distinction of the sexes, the meaning of the sacramental
priesthood and its connection to both the High Priesthood of
Christ and to the royal priesthood of all believers and to
furthermore explore the other forms of ministry in the Church.
From such explorations we shall no doubt see again a
difference in the approach and in the conclusions drawn by the
two communions. Orthodox will continue to look to Holy Tradition
to provide a consistent and continuing witness to
the meaning of the sacramental priesthood even while exploring
"new" but never contradictory expressions of the other
ministries of women and men in the Church. Likewise, Anglicans
will probably continue to regard doctrinal and sacramental
expressions of the "Church" as being subject to
historical and cultural conditions and always in the light of the
tension between "grace" and "sin." Of course,
some individual Orthodox will come out in favor of women's
ordination (as an eschatological sign?) while some Anglicans will
reject it as a compromise with the "spirit of this
world." However, it is exceedingly unlikely that the
Orthodox will "discover" in the Tradition a line of
thought that would permit the wholesale rejection of Church
practice for 20 centuries on such a central matter as ordination
(of the "esse" of the Church) just as it is unlikely
that Anglicans as a body will repent of what many of them
consider to be an issue of "justice" and
"prophetic witness" to the world.
The good which will come of all this is that Orthodox will be
challenged to explore the meaning and truth which underlies our
understanding not only of the all male sacramental priesthood but
of the much larger issue of the meaning and value of the two
sexes created "in the image and likeness of God." This
too, as we will see, is a fundamentally ecclesial issue directly
related to the most fundamental of all ecclesial models, that of
the Bride-Bridegroom with all its ramifications for Christian
life both in the home and the Church. If Anglicans and Orthodox
actually do manage to address this issue seriously among
themselves and with each other, it promises to be a profoundly
enlightening experience — though the likelihood of real
agreement may prove to be unobtainable.
In the final analysis, ecclesiology and how it relates to our
understanding of Tradition and authority is by far the most
difficult and even contentious area in our dialogue with
Anglicans. However, if our dialogue is conducted in a spirit of
frankness, fearlessness, and love, we have much to say to one
another. This means we must be willing to say (and hear)
"hard sayings." The failure or unwillingness to do so
at this critical juncture in our respective histories will spell
the end of any fruitful conversation. The ultimate question is
whether or not either or both participants in the dialogue have
the courage to proceed into the rough and uncharted waters ahead.
Fr. Daly is a former "liberal" Episcopalian who converted to Orthodoxy. He
is pastor of St. Nicholas Orthodox Church, Southbridge, MA.)
ECCLESIOLOGY: What is it? Why is it important?
by Franklin Billerbeck
How we view, think about, and understand the Church is
referred to as ecclesiology. While this may seem like an abstract
area best left to academic theologians in seminaries, it is not.
It is an area of vital concern to every Christian.
Whether or not you have thought about it much, you have an
understanding of the Church, an ecclesiology, even if only by
default. Indeed, you must deal with the Church: Christ founded it
and spoke of it and it has been a big part of history for almost
2,000 years. How you understand the Church, however, is
influenced in no small part by how you answer the basic question:
who is Jesus Christ?
If Jesus Christ is merely one of many prophets, then Church
is less important because there are always other prophets and
ways of relating to God. In this view, Christianity is only one
of many possible religious choices. Moreover, all (or at least
most) religions have some truth. Therefore it is simply a
question of choosing which you prefer. No religion is really
superior to another religion except that it may be a better
religion for you. Such a view destroys missionary activity and
means we can't claim one religion is true and another is false
(likewise it may become very difficult to claim one moral view is
right while a different moral view is wrong). In this view either
the various religions are all valid throughout all time or they
are given in a series of revelations as humanity needs them—one
revelation follows after another. Thus while original
Christianity was good in its day, it is today replaced by
something more appropriate to our situation. While this view is
held by many in America today it is not the view of the undivided
Church and it is not compatible with traditional Christianity.
On the other hand, if Jesus is who He said He was, God
Incarnate, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, who came once
to give the fullness of God's revelation, then we have a very
different picture; for Jesus founded the Church and the
"gates of hell shall not prevail against it." To
misunderstand the Church would lead to a misunderstanding of our
very relationship with God as Jesus intended that relationship.
"Unless ye eat my flesh and drink my blood ye have no
live in you," says our Lord. But this is possible only
within the Church, and Scripture is very clear: there is one
Church, one Lord, one faith, and one
baptism. How then do we account for the literally thousands of so
called "churches"? Three basic responses come to mind.
The first is to say we can't account for the differences. In
essence this is nihilism (that is, we don't know and we
can't know). Such a view is not agreeable with Jesus being Who He
claimed He was. If Jesus is God and He founded one Church
which is necessary for our salvation, would He leave us in a
setting where we could not locate this Church? Had He done so,
His painful death on the Cross would have been largely in vain.
Moreover, His promise that the Holy Spirit will lead and guide us
into all truth would be nothing more than a bad joke. If Christ's
promise that the Holy Spirit will lead us to all truth is a false
promise, then why should we trust any of His other promises? If
this is how God so loved the world, then we are in deep trouble!
Indeed, such a perspective calls into question our very
understanding of God's nature (loving) and whether or not Jesus
Christ is God.
A second approach is best described as minimalism.
This view tries to account for the various "churches"
by claiming that there is a minimum necessary to be the Church
and that wherever that minimum is present there is the Church.
Because this minimum may be present in any number of
denominations, and it is this minimum which makes the Church one,
there is one Church, with one minimum faith, in a variety of
denominations.
Of course the problem with minimalism is deciding what the
minimum is! Forgetting for a moment the question of who is the
judge of what minimum is needed, we find a wide variety of
possible minimums.
One the one end of minimalism is an understanding that those
who do good in Christ's name are the Church. This view allows a
wide variety of beliefs about Christ and about doctrine. In fact,
you could reject most of the Bible but still believe (in some
vague way) in Christ and be considered part of the Church. Such a
view could make part of the Church such different groups as David
Koresh, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Episcopalians, Holy
Rollers, Baptists, Roman Catholics, and even Arians (who denied
the Divinity of Christ and were anathematized by ecumenical
council!) and Moslems!
Slightly less broad, but still minimalistic, is to require
some set of beliefs e.g., that Christ is God and Man and that the
Bible is God's Word. Depending on how much is included in this
minimum of requirements, it may or may not narrow the field of
churches. Yet it is exactly this minimalism that underlies all of
Protestant Christianity! Some "churches," for example,
have a very short list of minimums (e.g., Methodists,
Fundamentalist, etc.—[believe in Christ and be saved]) while
others have a highly developed statement of beliefs (e.g.,
Lutherans and their Augsburg Confession).
The understanding of Church with the largest minimum is
probably the Anglican notion of the "branch" theory. In
this view, those churches holding the faith of the undivided
church and maintaining apostolic succession are fully Church
i.e., Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox. Like all other
varieties of minimalism, the "branch" theory suffers
from the problem that there is no authoritative determination of
what the minimum is. Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox
disagree about what the faith is (e.g., papal infallibility, filioque,
etc.) and they disagree about what the undivided Church believed.
Besides this problem of deciding what the minimum set of
beliefs are, minimalism suffers from three other problems: it
results in contradictory and mutually exclusive beliefs, there is
no authoritative judge to decide the minimum of beliefs, and it
is contrary to the Bible.
Minimalism, clearly the dominant American understanding of
the Church, results in accepting a variety of beliefs which are
contradictory and mutually exclusive. Once you have the minimum,
then a variety of additions are all accepted—you may believe in
papal infallibility or you may not, you may believe Communion is
the Body and Blood of Christ or you may not, you may accept
apostolic succession or you may not, you may accept sola
scriptura and biblical inerrancy or you may not, etc. Because
many of these beliefs contradict one another and are mutually
exclusive (you can't both believe in papal infallibility and
reject papal infallibility, and you can't both believe the Bible
is with out any error and believe the Bible may have some
errors), the only option is to say that beyond the minimum of
beliefs, whatever additional beliefs you choose to hold are not
essential—believe whatever you like. In other words, beyond the
minimum there is no absolute, identifiable Truth. Thus, for
example, whether or not Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ
or whether the pope is infallible is, arguably, irrelevant and,
at least from looking at the Christian landscape, can't be
determined with certainty.
Such a view is not satisfying and leads to disunity in the
faith. Therefore in such a view the Church would logically be
seen as "by heresies distressed," for to view her as
the pure and spotless bride of Christ is inconsistent with the
reality of her many, divergent, and contradictory beliefs and
practices. Yet this is the understanding of probably most
American Christians! As President Truman once is reputed to have
said: "We are all on the same train, going to the same
place. We are just in different coaches." In other words,
what you believe is really not very important. Thus, when you
hear people say they will go to whatever church feels right, they
are really minimalists. When you hear people say, "Oh, the
churches are really all the same," they are minimalists.
When you see people change from Roman Catholic to Lutheran or
from Lutheran to Methodist, unless they really have
changed their theology, they are minimalist. One cannot change
from being Episcopalian to Presbyterian, Methodist, or Roman
Catholic without undergoing serious and profound theological
change unless, deep down, they are a minimalist or are ignorant
or unwilling or unable to study. For the millions of people like
this there is some certain minimum (about which they have
probably thought little) and beyond that they will pick and
choose what they like.
Of course in minimalism there is really no authoritative
judge to decide what the minimum of belief is. Many would respond
that you just need to accept the Bible. However, two people can
accept the Bible (even as God's Word) and mean very different
things by that—God's Word once and for all time or one of God's
Words which will be replaced when we become ready for more.
Moreover, there is no authoritative way to interpret the Bible.
Thus when Article 6 of the Articles of Religion says
Episcopalians can't be required to believe something that can't
be proven by Holy Scripture, the problem is to whom does the
proof need to be given and by what standard will that proof be
judged?
Thus, in minimalism, because there is no authoritative judge
determining what is minimum, each individual must decide for him
or herself what the minimum is. The end result of such
individualism is, of course, confusion. The result is a cafeteria
approach to Christianity—take what you like, leave what you
don't and please don't disturb anybody else's choices. The
logical result is that the faith of the individual, not the faith
of the Church, become primary. Thus the individual person,
parish, or diocese can retreat to isolationism, largely ignoring
the rest of the Church.
Many conservative Anglicans and Episcopalians are exactly
like this. The Church as a whole is not primary. What is
important is themselves and/or their congregation. Thus as long
as their diocese or parish does not bless same sex marriages they
will not be too upset—even if their neighboring diocese or
parish does bless same sex marriages. In such a view, a person or
an individual parish can simply go on holding to what they have
always done and the national church can do whatever—it does not
impact on the individual or the local parish. Such a view and
practice is and must be at its very foundation minimalistic.
Given the response of many so called ESA dioceses, parishes, and
individuals, it seems fair to say that they accept minimalism and
hence view the Church primarily as individual or congregational
(a very unbiblical view) rather than as a larger organism.
Ultimately for these people faith is divorced from a larger
setting and is determined by the individual—with the resulting
diversity of beliefs and practices—a tower of Babel!
Such an individualistic view means that ultimate authority in
the Church rests only with the individual. The Church as a whole
has no binding authority. Thus an individual can claim, for
example, to be a "good" Roman Catholic but can also
choose to reject the dogma of papal infallibility or call God
Mother, Daughter, Spirit. In a word, the sheep are scattered,
each to fend for him or herself. Of course, at an institutional
level, the view of the church becomes focused, not on the
Lordship of Jesus Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit,
but on individualistic beliefs and theories. Control of the
church as institution is viewed in human terms and the most
powerful group of individuals gains control.
While this individualistic result of minimalism is the basic
understanding of the Church held, I believe, by many
"conservative" Episcopalians, it is also the basic
understanding of the Church held by many so called
"liberals." For the "liberals" the minimum
may be different than for the conservative, but it is ultimately
the individual who decides what Christianity is. While the
conservative may accept certain minimal standards of belief,
conduct and judgment for determining the faith, it is an
individual decision. For the liberal there is simply a different
personal choice regarding what the minimum is and, like for the
"conservative," it is on a personal or individual
authority that he accepts alternative standards for determining
belief and conduct. Because they accept different standards, the
"liberal" and the "conservative" are in
conflict. But at their core, they share a certain common
understanding of the Church, namely, minimalism and its resulting
individualism.
Because there is no authoritative way to decide what the
necessary minimum is, we are left with basically the same problem
as we had with nihilism. We have no way to locate the Church or
account for the denominations. Granted, each denomination has its
own answer (e.g., just believe in Jesus, be baptized [some would
require that be with water in the name of the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit while others would not]) but which is right? Perhaps
safest route is to choose the "church with the most."
But this only leads to the problem that minimalism is
unbiblical. Christ's promise to send the Holy Spirit who will
lead and guide us into all Truth is suddenly brought into
question. Christ's revelation once delivered in its fullness is
suddenly not clear because various groups (all under the Holy
Spirit?) have different ideas what minimum is required. Given
that the Spirit will not lie, do we take only as minimum that
basic truth upon which all denominations can agree? If so, what
is it? They are mutually exclusive—for example, Jesus Christ is
true God and true Man or Jesus Christ is true God but not true
man. Moreover, minimalism fails to account for the explicit
warnings in Scripture to beware of false prophets which will lead
us astray and of the devil roaming about like a lion seeking to
devour the sheep.
Scripture points out that Christ is the Head of the Church
and Christ is Truth Himself (John 12:6). Truth is not a
confession of certain beliefs but rather Truth is God, and we
know Truth only through relation with Truth. Christ called us to
a full relationship. Christ did not merely call us to believe
certain things. Relationship can never be captured in its
fullness by a listing of beliefs—a listing of beliefs about
marriage is not and cannot be, for example, the same thing as
marriage. To understand Church primarily as a set of beliefs
about God is to fundamentally misunderstand the Church. Church is
a community of humanity united with God. Thus minimalism starts
its basic understanding of Church on a false premise. It is only
because of the Church's relationship with God that she can
proclaim doctrine to defend the faith. This is different from
proclaiming doctrine to define fully what the faith is—the
faith, in a way like marriage, is ultimately a mystery beyond our
understanding and ability to define. Try, for example, to define
marriage so completely that the definition gets at and includes
every aspect of a marriage relationship. Thus when the Church is
viewed as primarily as doctrine, instead of relationship with
God, human logic becomes more important than God's mystery and we
start playing theology. The Church's doctrine is not and cannot
be a total delineation of the faith. Rather it is a partial
defense of the already existing reality of the Church's
relationship with God.
The third response to the various denominations is perhaps
best described by the term wholeness. In this view, the
Church is that which has the whole relationship with Jesus
Christ. This whole relationship is ultimately beyond our
definition. It is a mystery which we understand only through a
cloudy glass. Hence there is no actual definition of what Church
is, rather there are simply comparisons to get at as much of the
meaning as we can understand.
Jesus called us to intimate relationship with Himself and
Scripture refers to the Church as the Body of Christ. Where there
is unity with Christ there is the Church. The Church, because she
is Christ's body, can never be separated from Christ. One is
united with Christ by being part of His body—the Church is
communal in nature, not individualistic. The Church is a living
relationship with Christ where each member of the body is
interacting and interdependent with the other parts of the body.
If one part is ill, it impacts on the other parts—see I Cor.
12:26.
In the Church God indwells with humanity so that humanity
might become god. We are, in the Church, made whole, complete,
and perfect. We are a new creation. Taken as a whole, the Body is
united with Christ and because Christ is holy, pure and spotless,
so also is the Church. Her individual members are on the path of
holiness and salvation is a process; therefore individuals will
have to struggle against sin, but hell will not prevail against
them—they will be united with Christ and made pure, holy, and
spotless. Hence church is the pure and spotless bride of Christ
and not primarily a body by heresies distressed.
This Church is identifiable in earthly time and space because
she possesses one Lord, one faith, one
baptism, and shares the one Communion—the Body and Blood
of Jesus Christ. Because Christ cannot be divided there can be no
division in His Body the Church. Neither can there be different
and contradictory doctrines. Christ would not lie to the Church
and the Holy Spirit leads us to all Truth. Thus in the Church one
finds unity in faith—a unity preserved by the indwelling of the
Holy Spirit. The Church is infallible because the Holy Spirit who
dwells in the Church is infallible. An individual member of the
Church, however, is not infallible.
One can identify and point to the Church where one finds the
same fullness of the faith and practice of the apostles—the
wholeness of relationship with Jesus Christ. The faith and
practice of the Church, her relationship with Jesus Christ,
simply do not change.
Ultimately it is up to God to make someone a member of His
Body. Hence there are probably people not associated with the
external aspects of Church who will be saved, that is, they will
be united, made part of, Christ's Body. Hence we can say that
outside the Church there is no salvation. Similarly there are
those who go through all the motions of Church but will not be
saved. It is not for us to decide who is and who is not part of
Christ's body.
We cannot say someone is saved (going to go to heaven), but
we can say someone holds the fullness of the faith and practice
of the apostles. That someone is, of course, Orthodox. There are
others who do not hold the fullness of the faith, and therefore
they are not Orthodox. This fullness of faith includes not only
dogma but faith and practice. When one holds the fullness of
faith and practice then one shares the Body and Blood of Jesus
Christ in the Mystery of Communion.
Those who do not hold the faith are more or less distant from
the Church as that Church is seen and locatable in this world.
The divisions of the denominations are the result of their
leaving the fullness of the faith—a leaving ultimately caused by
evil. We are warned of this in Holy Scripture.
Indeed, our Lord Jesus Christ founded the one Church.
It is this one Church which preserves, by the grace of the Holy
Spirit, the Faith "once delivered to the saints." There
is and can only be one True Faith—that revealed to the Church by
the Lord Jesus. Jesus warns us about false faiths and warns us to
be faithful to the True Faith received from Him and passed on in
its fullness by the apostles whether in word or in writing.
Because of her unity with Jesus Christ and the indwelling of the
Holy Spirit the Church rejects false teaching and embraces the
Truth.
The Church, therefore, is and can only be fully united and in
agreement about what the faith is. Doctrinal unity in the faith
is a necessary aspect, a sine que non, of Church. Those who do
not hold the fullness of the faith are simply not viewed as
Church — though the Church does not pass judgment upon their
salvation. Where questions arise (e.g., iconoclasm, Arianism,
etc.) it is the one Church, acting conciliarly under the guidance
of the Holy Spirit, which is led to the Truth. Hence a decision
of an ecumenical council is not considered true until the Church
accepts it.
The Nicene Creed, proclaimed by ecumenical council and
accepted by the Church, describes the Church as "one, holy,
catholic, and apostolic." Her faith and practice come from
the Lord and His apostles. Part of this faith is the Church's
understanding of what it means to share Communion—the Body and
Blood of Her Lord. Receiving Communion is unity with Christ—a
unity more intimate than even monogamous sexual unity shared
between man and wife. To be united with Christ is, of course, to
accept and be united with the fullness of His Revelation—to
accept the "faith once delivered to the saints" and to
reject false teaching. Therefore, only when there is this
agreement on the faith, can we share Holy Communion. Sharing
Communion is ultimate unity with Christ and unity with all the
members of His Body. For this reason the Church does not admit to
Communion those who do not share the faith—she denies communion
to heretics. This is part of the faith and practice of the
"undivided" Church, and it is not open for debate. The
same councils that proclaimed the Nicene/ Constantinopolitan
Creed excommunicated heretics who rejected the faith expressed
therein (e.g., Second Ecumenical Council, Canon 1). The Body and
Blood of Christ is shed for the life of the world but is given
only to those who are united with the Church. By not giving
Communion to heretics the Church preserves the fullness and unity
of the faith and makes abundantly clear what that faith is. She
also preserves the health of the body and saves the heretic from
doing something that is dangerous for his/her soul. Holy
Communion is fire that burns the unworthy. In Communion we are
fully united with God. Remember that no one has seen God and
lived—here we receive God! St. Paul warns us that those who eat
and drink but do not discern the Body and Blood bring judgment
and even death upon themselves (I Corinthians).
Where the bishop is there is the Church because the bishop
teaches the fullness of the apostolic faith (or he is not
a bishop) and celebrates the Eucharist. Because of her unity in
faith and hence her unity in Eucharist, the Church is and can
only be united—she is utterly indivisible! Schism is separation from
the Church; a leaving, a moving away from the faith and hence the
eucharistic union of the identifiable community which is the
Church. Schism is never a division within the Church. When
receiving Communion one is fully united with the entire Body of
Christ, both on earth and in heaven; hence one is united with,
for example, the present Patriarchs of Moscow, Antioch, and
Constantinople and also with Sts. Peter, Paul, Basil, Patrick,
Katherine, and, of course, the Virgin Mary. The true unity of the
Church, therefore, is found in her receiving and sharing in the
one Body of Jesus Christ.
Because sharing Communion requires sharing the same faith, it
is not possible to be an Orthodox Christian and share Communion
with non-Orthodox. This does not mean we do not love the
non-Orthodox, that we don't have things in common with them, or
that we think we are better than they are (after all, they might
be saved and we might not be—that is up to God). However, for
Orthodox, to share Communion with non-Orthodox would be a
rejection of their Orthodox faith—the fullness of the revelation
is an all or nothing proposition. Reject the Church's
understanding of Eucharist and sharing Communion, and you reject
the Church!
While ecclesiology may seem foreign and abstract, it impacts
upon how we live our Christian life. Our understanding of the
Church is grounded in our understanding of who Jesus Christ is.
While there are three basic ways to view the Church, the first
two, nihilism and minimalism are filled with
problems and are in error. While the Church is ultimately a
mystery beyond our understanding, the only Orthodox approach to
understanding her is to approach her as wholeness, that
is, the whole and complete revelation of God which calls us into
union with Him who is forever and ever, the Alpha and the Omega.
A FEW READINGS ON THE CHURCH
- Finding the New Testament Church, by Fr. Jon E.
Braun. Short and concise.
- Scripture and Tradition, by Raymond L. Zell.
- For the Life of the World, by Fr. Alexander
Schmemann. A classic. Sacramental approach to the world
based on the liturgical experience of the Church.
- Common Ground: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity
for the American Christian, by Jordan Bajis. Includes
a superb but easy to understand discussion of the church.
- The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom, by Fr.
Alexander Schmemann. A classic.
- Catholicity and the Church, by Fr. John
Meyendorff. A classic.
- Living Tradition, by Fr. John Meyendorff. A
classic.
- All the Fullness of God, by Fr. Thomas Hopko. See
esp. chapters 1, 3 and 6.
|