Must the Church be an organization?

In my last post, I concluded that the authority to interpret Christian doctrine rests on the One True Church; however, I have not defined this One True Church. Before we may venture further, we must establish what we mean by this word “Church” (including its capitalized and lower-case forms).

When we refer to a “church” [uncapitalized], we usually refer to a particular congregation of Christians and/or the building they gather in. When we refer to “The Church” [capitalized] we may mean one of two things:

(1) An organization of these churches sharing common doctrinal beliefs affirmed by a central and terminal authority, such as a council, convention, or pontiff (for example, “The Roman Catholic Church” or “The Southern Baptist Church”), in other words, a denomination

(2) The entire global body of Christians, the Body of Christ

When we give the power over interpretation of doctrine to the True Church, we certainly mean the Church in this second, global sense. The question that emerges, though, is whether we must also mean a particular organizational Church (sense 1).

I think we must. My reasons for thinking so are connected to my reason for arguing for the True Church as the defender of orthodoxy in the first place; or put another way, I think this institutional concept of the church is entailed by the role that I have suggested it has.

If we define the True Church as simply the global body of Christ, the question must be asked, do we mean that all Church denominations are included in this? We would then be in the position of affirming the Fire Baptized Church of God of Holiness of the Americas, the Central Yearly Meeting of Friends, the Branch Davidians, the Indian Shakers, not to mention both the Catholics and the Protestants, as all authoritative for interpreting Christian doctrine and practice. Certainly this is not tenable! It is more likely that we mean that the Church transcends the denominations, not fitting perfectly into any one of them. Some people from any denomination might be part of the True Church, and some people from any denomination may not be part of it. In other words, the Church is a spiritual entity known to God and not fully to man.

However, thus abstracting the True Church away from any earthly form leaves us in danger of being unable to recognize it. It cannot be that we are left without any means of ascertaining the Church, because we must be a part of it! Christ wills for us to participate in his Church. Accepting an agnostic position in which we are not concerned about the authenticity of our own church and denomination leaves us powerless to affirm truth or reject falsehood. We may be part of a false or deficient church, and thus develop falsities and deficiencies in our soul, and those around us. We might imbibe false prophecy and erroneous teaching without even knowing it. This is certainly not a possibility that the Good Shepherd leaves open to his precious flock. There must be some way of knowing for sure whether our church or denomination is part of the True Church.

Is there any way that we can affirm the truth of our church or our denomination without equating it to The Church? There is a way, the way taken by congregationalists and quakers and those who see their churches as democratic gatherings of autonomous believers. It is an appeal to a power outside the church or denomination itself: to Reason. The congregationalist believes in his church because he believes that his pastor or his elders or he himself has enough reason and insight, and that their Reason has the authority to interpret Christian doctrine and practice, using the Bible as a basis.

However, I have argued previously that the authority to interpret Christian truth cannot be trusted to the reason of men, for we are flawed and sinful and incapable of reliably interpreting the divine mysteries. The True Church, for whose preservation Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane, could never surrender her members to such a treacherous guide, but would protect them from error by her own authority. Since The Church is herself the true authority (as I said in my last post), she would never abdicate to an impostor.

If we affirm more than one denomination, we fall to contradiction, and if we affirm none of them, we fall to an agnosticism that renders us powerless against error, which itself can only be remedied by giving Reason the scepter of interpretation, which The Church would never do. We must therefore regard a single Church, a denomination, as The Church.

We have now come to the point when we can and must ask, “Which Church (sense 1) is the Church (sense 2)?” or put another way, “Which denomination is the True Church?” I will consider this immense and crucial question later, but the significance of the point we have just come to cannot be overstated, namely, that the question can be framed in those terms at all.

Ecumenism and mystery

Embracing the true mysteries of Christianity is the only way to fulfill Jesus’ prayer that we would be one as he is one with the father, for that union is itself one of paradox.

Ecumenism does not call us to water down doctrinal truth but rather to co-participate in mysteries that are truer than any doctrine that attempts to encapsulate them.

In this way ecumenism can correct the ways that western enlightenment-influenced theology overcorrected when it focused the essence of Christianity into right statements and precise doctrinal systems.

An honest consideration of the Word reveals that it is not the scriptures, but He about whom they testify. Language itself is a sign pointing to Him, and the more true our doctrine, the more we will understand that it does not exist of or for itself, but rather we will look along its arrow at the Living Truth.

We will know that there is more to truth than doctrine, and in this light we will be free to engage with others inside the fold with more generosity, and indeed we will also be able to relate to God more rightly, with a sense of his grandeur. Does it not glorify a father when he has a special relationship with each of many children, so that each knows some different things about him, but all know him truly and intimately?

Consider a child who believes he is the sole possessor of true knowledge about his father and cannot accept that his sibling knows something that he does not. This child knows less about his father that he pretends, for he has equated his father with his knowledge of his father, thereby reducing him to a concept under his control. He will be like Cain. By his disdain for his brother he reveals that he does not know their father and does not truly respect him as a greater, deeper, and realer person.

Far better is the child who remains in childlike awe and dependence upon the father, walking in a way of simple obedience, by all means judging between truth and seditious error and decrying an intruder into the house, but yet humble towards the brothers in all the other rooms in the house, those younger and older, having at the same time a confidence about his own personal knowledge of the father, and a right estimation of his importance, perspective, and intellect in the great household.

The answer rising up in some hearts at that statement is, “Yes, but we cannot compromise on the essentials of the faith! Things like soli scriptura are not simply parts of truth, they are bottom-line non-negotiables, and to put them on the table for discussion is to flirt with apostasy.”

There are certainly essentials. However, do we believe that “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy”? As All Sons and Daughters say in their lyric, “To know you is to love you, and to know so little else.” Are we willing to approach our faith with the humility that comes from a reverent embrace of mystery? Are we willing to admit that our doctrine does not comprise all truth, knowing that this does not invalidate our doctrine, but rather exalts truth beyond the realm of human logic. Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!

Visible signs: A Protestant defends controversial Catholic doctrines

The Catholic Church has been accused of corrupting the essentials of the Christian faith. Catholics maintain the importance of a priesthood to steward the faith, claim that Baptism and Holy Communion are necessary for salvation, and that Christ is fully and really present in the elements of Holy Communion. Protestants decry these as denial of the priesthood of the believer, salvation by ritualistic good works, and hocus-pocus cannibalism. Although I believe that the Catholic Church has exaggerated some of its doctrines beyond what the Bible teaches, and is encumbered in some areas by centuries of gradual accumulation of pharisaical over-complication, recent inquiries lead me to believe that these accusations do not fully understand Catholic doctrine. Moreover, I believe it is possible to reconcile some of the more controversial Catholic doctrines with what the Bible teaches. Many of the supposed errors of Catholicism can be explained if we make a crucial assumption: that the language whereby God communicates with man is through visible signs. I will explain this idea and show how it works to account for the controversial Catholic doctrines of the Church, Priesthood, Baptism and Transubstantiation, while showing that these doctrines are not, if properly understood and practiced, a betrayal of Biblical Christianity. The goal for all of this is to show that it is possible for Protestants and Catholics to strive for unity through a deeper understanding of these doctrines. Such unity would be of great value to the church.

Understanding the Sacramental Paradigm

The Catholic Catechism describes the basis for the belief in a visible symbolic language of interaction between God and man: God conveys his grace to man, and man renders his worship to God, by way of rituals that signify spiritual realities and form a bridge of meaning between the temporal and eternal. These signs and symbols are called the sacraments. “A sacramental celebration is a meeting of God’s children with their Father, in Christ and the Holy Spirit; this meeting takes the form of a dialogue, through actions and words” (Catechism, 1146). The core of this philosophy is rooted in human nature.

In human life, signs and symbols occupy an important place. As a being at once body and spirit, man expresses and perceives spiritual realities through physical signs and symbols. As a social being, man needs signs and symbols to communicate with others, through language, gestures, and actions. The same holds true for his relationship with God. (Catechism, 1146)

Do visible signs usher in heavenly realities? Scriptures can be offered that support and defend the sacraments, and scholars have debated for centuries. Let me offer to broad ideas that verify that we communicate with God through visible signs.

First, the unique miracle of Christianity is that God has communicated redemption to us visibly and entered the physical realm. In Jesus Christ, God came from that which we could not experience to become like us, tangible and understandable to us. That is the heart of the wondrous Gospel—Immanuel, God With Us, the God-Man, the Word and Revelation of the Unseen God! Catholic.org makes the analogy of Jesus and the sacraments:

The great mystery of the union in Christ of a human nature with the second Person of the Godhead is that the human actions and sufferings of Christ are divine actions and sufferings. The sacraments are a living continuation of this mystery. There are earthly, external signs here which, of themselves, could never acquire any supernatural significance, but the signs of the sacraments have been made by Christ into vehicles of his grace. They effect in men the grace for which Christ made them the sign.

In no other major religion does God Himself so enter the physical. Furthermore, we will have resurrected bodies—again, a redemption of the physical, which is not the same as simply enlightening us to a spiritual plane. Therefore, the very Incarnation of Jesus set the precedent for a sign economy.

Second, we express faith back to God visibly. True faith is not intellectual assent, but a response with “heart, soul, mind and strength.” The New Testament cautions us countless times to express the sincerity of our belief through actions. As James says, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected” (James 2:21-22).

There is a fullness, a reality, a consummation that only comes to faith when it is acted upon. Like the old example says, one might believe that the tight-rope walker can carry him across the canyon, but he does not truly have faith until he climbs into the walker’s arms.

If man has both divine and earthly natures, and God came to earth to partake of both, and if man offers back faith through both, then it makes sense that our communication with God would be in a language of holy signs which, by God’s power, themselves bridge the sacred and mundane, to bring our human hearts into God’s heavenly presence.

Controversial Doctrines Understood through the Sacramental Paradigm

The presupposition that visible rites are the vessels of heavenly realities has given rise to many of the doctrines that Protestants take issue with. However, if we think through this sacramental lens, the doctrines seem less than heretical.

The Church

In Catholicism, the Church, the Body of Christ, is the great sacrament by which God communicates the gospel to the world. The Latin phrase extra Ecclesiam nulla salus means: “outside the church there is no salvation” (Wikipedia). The Catechism interprets this to mean that “all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body.” Is this adding to salvation by requiring “church membership” as a distinct or separate requirement? I don’t think so. Why? All Christians affirm that there is no salvation without being united with Christ, being “in Him,” and all believe that one is united to the Body of Christ on the basis of faith, and that receiving the life of Christ by grace through faith unites one to the Body of Christ. Furthermore, it is impossible to be a member of Christ’s Body and yet at the same time, not a member. The difference is that Catholics connect the Body Christ in the mystical sense with the Body of Christ that exists in the world—the church is the visible sign of the mystical reality. The Church is the representation of that entity to which every true believer belongs. So, because Catholics believe that membership in the earthly Body of Christ is sacramentally united with membership in the mystical or heavenly Body of Christ, they do not hold to a separate source of salvation. They simply define the expression of the heavenly reality in more concrete terms.

The Priesthood

In Catholicism, priests, bishops, and above all the Pope are said to represent the office of Christ. For example, priests proclaim salvation during confession, and the Pope speaks with divine authority when he makes proclamations ex cathedra. Is this elevating others to the level of Christ, or granting authority to men that belongs to God?

Not under a “visible sign” worldview. All Christians believe that Jesus is our shepherd and high priest, and that he is continually performing priestly intercession for us before the father, and conveying to us the blessings of priesthood by his spirit. Catholics believe that human priests are sacramental representations of Jesus, not additional mediators between God and man. Catholic doctrine states that the services of the priest are effective regardless of the worthiness of the priest; rather, they are effective ex opere operato, i.e., by virtue of their being done. This shows that priests do not represent an intermediate gateway to Christ, per se. If they were a gateway, then, like a kink in a hose, a breach in their holiness would damage the services of sacraments administered through them. On the contrary, the priests are representational in their service—meaning that they represent Jesus to the Church, and the Church to Jesus. Just as the Church is the visible sign of the Body of Christ, the priests represent Christ the Head. They bear Christ’s authority and conduct his ministries as the signs of the invisible Christ who presides spiritually over the worship of the church. Thus it can be properly said that it is not the priest himself, but Christ, who conducts the worship of the Mass, and when the priest offers the Eucharist, it is Christ himself who offers Himself as the sacrifice and the feast, even as he did on the Cross. If priests are seen to truly signify Christ, then their role in the Mass, rather than creating unnecessary intermediate channels of grace, increases the immediacy and power with which Christ’s presence and ministry is experienced.

The Necessity of Baptism

Just as the priests visibly signify and communicate to the visible world the spiritual presence of Christ, and just as the visible gathering of the Church signifies the Body of Christ, his Spiritual Community of Worshippers, the sacraments signify the holy exchanges by which God communicates his grace through faith to man, and man offers back faith and worship. Catholics say that partaking of Baptism and Holy Communion is necessary for salvation. “The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation” (1129). In particular, the Catechism affirms that Baptism and Holy Communion are necessary for initiation into the redeemed community of the church.

Is this tantamount to works-based salvation? Is the requirement of participation in ceremonial rites not the same as “works of the flesh,” while the Bible says that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone? Not under a sacramental paradigm. Take Baptism for instance. Is the sprinkling or immersion in water by the priest, an act that is done in order to earn salvation? No, they are acts of faith. The Catechism states:

The purpose of the sacraments is to sanctify men, to build up the Body of Christ and, finally, to give worship to God. Because they are signs they also instruct. They not only presuppose faith, but by words and objects they also nourish, strengthen, and express it. That is why they are called ‘sacraments of faith.” (1123).

Just as before, the Catholic Church simply presupposes that the spiritual reality of faith must be fully realized in a visible expression that “expresses” it. Since the sacraments “presuppose faith,” they consummate it, rather than replace it or add to it. The Catholic Church denies that a sacrament is effective if administered to someone without the right disposition of faith. And yet, Catholics believe that baptism is essential in the formation of full faith in the person. If one refuses baptism (knowing of its existence) he rejects the sign of the reality, through which the reality is consummated. How can one possess the reality if he rejects its manifestation? Consider a man who says that he loves a woman and will never leave her, but refuses to marry her. His commitment could properly be denied. It is the same sort of situation here.

Transubstantiation

The Catholic Church affirms the doctrine of transubstantiation, that in the bread and wine of Holy Communion “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained” (1374). The difference between transubstantiation (the Catholic doctrine) and consubstantiation (the Lutheran doctrine) is simply one of semantics: most Catholics will not agree that this means that they are participating in a cannibalistic act of eating the body of Christ on a molecular, cellular level. Catholics rely on the Aristotilian notion of “substance”, in which a substance transcends the sum of its properties or physical descriptors (as wax may change form, but still be wax). Thus the doctrine inevitably abstracts itself beyond crude physicality. Nevertheless, the Catechism states, “the signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ” (1333). The elements of bread and wine are the body of Christ, rather than being simply symbols or memorials of Him; though perhaps not “physically” present, Christ can be said to be literally, truly, really, or actually present in the elements.

Why must Christ be so present in the Eucharist? Because it is the visible sign by which we experience the spiritual reality. Again, according to the visible sign paradigm, to participate in the atoning death of Christ in the fullest sense requires that we experience it both mentally/spiritually AND physically, since God’s graces and our worshipful responses are communicated most truly when they are communicated concurrently in both dimensions, not in one or the other separately. Christ’s atonement, eternally true in the spiritual realm, is communicated to our bipartite natures by a means at once both spiritual and, yes, physical, through the elements. Thus properly understood, transubstantiation is a miracle in which the elements of communion undergo a sort of “hypostatic union” that perpetuates the mystery of the hypostatic union of His human and divine natures, and allows us to perpetually experience the fullness of his sacrifice on the Cross.

Dangers and Benefits of the Sacramental Paradigm

The dangers of excess on the side of the sacramental paradigm are obvious from history. Men can easily forget the signified spiritual truths, and attach slavish obligation to the performance of the physical signs. The signs can easily become “of this world.” Saussure’s semiotics tell us that, if the signs are not properly understood, they cease to exist as transporters of meaning. Without proper teaching and instruction from the word, the holiness of the sacraments will disintegrate and leave only ritualistic shells. This is what drove the Protestant denominations back to the rudiments of the Bible, and that to this day leaves many nominal Catholics without a true saving faith.

However, the sacraments, if taught correctly, have great power to awaken the spiritual life. The frequent problem of the Protestant denominations is that they are plain and uninspiring. They sometimes do not capture the heart with the beauty and sacred majesty of the gospel, because they are so concerned with preserving the intellectual/spiritual side of faith. By bringing the faith into a more tangible, immediate experience, the Catholic can experience God’s presence with the senses and worship with great awe. A visible-sign theology does not necessarily reduce faith—it can increase it. Instead of merely affirming abstract truths, one’s faith is confronted with an array of miracles spread out before him, full of sacred power. So there is much good that can come from the sacramental paradigm.

The Take-away: Seeking Unity

I have attempted to show how some of the Catholic doctrines that Protestants disdain may in fact be reconciled with Biblical faith. My approach has been to highlight the pervasive theme of sacramental economy in Catholic doctrine. I don’t claim that this concept is better than a more straightforward “sola fide” approach to the communication of God and man, but I believe it at least expresses a valid point of view through which we may perceive the Christian faith. Actually I believe that the perfect perspective lies at some mysterious place near the intersection of the many sects of Christianity. That’s why I am eager for Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Coptics, and all Christians to examine our faith anew and determine exactly which hills we are willing to die on. What will be worth fighting over when we look back 100 years from now? Or from heaven? There are certainly some things that should be contended for, but there are also many unnecessary divisions in the church. I am eager for the day when the church will reach new levels of unity. Am I going to convert to Catholicism? That hasn’t been the point of this essay. The point has been to expand my and my readers’ idea of what Catholicism teaches in relation to the Bible and in relation to our own denominations, so that we might be more likely to extend a hand of fellowship or sit down to engage in a discussion with Catholics in the future. I hope that you will join me in pursuing this in the future.

Soli Deo gloria.

40,000 denominations

There are essentials and there are nonessentials.

A handful of theological issues are so closely linked to the Gospel that they are nonnegotiable—to redefine them is lethal to the Gospel’s meaning. The Trinity, Human Depravity, the Hypostatic Union, the Atonement, the Resurrection, etc.—these truths wrap closely around Christ and form the heart of the Gospel. It is the duty of all Christians to protect such essential doctrines from those who would tamper with them.

Yet, beyond these, the Christian should accept a multitude of doctrinal perspectives. Members of different historical traditions of Christianity should remember the improbability that any single denomination of Christianity has the only valid understanding of the smaller details of the Bible. In fact, the differences benefit us, because they keep our individual and cultural biases in check, and compound into a kaleidoscope of perspectives through which men better behold the multifaceted and mysterious glory of the Gospel. God is so beautiful that he should be viewed from every angle.

Furthermore, God wants his children to be bound in a unity of love. Jesus prayed “that [Christians] may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me” (John 17:23). This unity calls for a generous and loving acceptance of believers with many different forms of Christian practice. Therefore, the modus operandi of the Christian is to content with those who differ essentially on the core doctrines, and to embrace as a brother all those differ nonessentially on the core doctrines.

What is the core essence of the faith we hold? What is essential about your church and mine, and what is just optional? Have we confused the two?

There are about 40,000 denominations of Christianity. I wonder what would it would be like if we came together around Jesus, Redeemer, God With Us, and let our simple, vibrant love for Him and for our spiritual family blow the world away.

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. (1 Corinthians 10:16-17)