This is Life!: Revolutions Around the Cruciform Axis

A-Voiding the Word: My Response to Kevin's Other Post

My dia-blog with Kevin on the Tradition continues.

I'm glad we do have points of agreement, so I am grateful to hear you say things like, "I wish everyone believed that the church's life was something given to it by Christ; that this life is no mere doctrinal concept. To this extent, we agree."

Unfortunately, while it is clear that you grasp the claims of the Orthodox Church, you mistake the actual force of those claims. For example, you say, in summarizing my points, "The Orthodox Church is the true church of Christ. It has a specific way of doing things, which it defines as its 'Tradition.' This, it claims, is given in infallible and unbroken form all the way from Christ. The proof of such a pedigree is found in the fact that it is this church that does these things." This is, indeed, true. The Orthodox Church claims to be the true Church of Christ, that very Body Christ Himself founded on the Apostles and Prophets. As such, the Church's Tradition is, then, that which is the Tradition of the Orthodox Church. All of this is consistent with my claims.

But just prior to that summation, you write, "This statement would be fine if 'Tradition' meant those beliefs and practices which exhibit the truths of the Gospel and are common to all those who profess the name of Christ. But it does not. It refers to the beliefs and practices of a specific denomination." Here you slip. In point of fact, if the Orthodox Church claims to be the Church of Christ, She is not merely just another denomination, but is the sole visible Body of Christ. If the Orthodox Church thought of herself as simply the most pure of, the most correct of all other denominations, then she could not claim to be the Body of Christ, but only one branch among many. This in fact is precisely what she rejects about Herself, that she is merely one among many more or less correct "options."

Similarly, you go on to extrapolate, apparently via logical categories, from the statement that if Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy alone has Life and is the Church, then no other denominations have any of this Life and are not the Church. This in fact is a distortion, nor is it logically required. It is true that the exclusivity of Orthodoxy's claims to being the Church, seems to require that all other Christian groups are not the Church, but it is not true that Orthodoxy claims all else are dead.

Think of it this way. That the Orthodox consider themselves the Church of Christ is an exclusive claim. It either is the case or it is not. If it is the case, then no other church can make the same claim. And, to the degree that Orthodoxy is that which she claims (the Church), she is only witnessing to the truth She has been given. Orthodoxy does not make her claim out of pride, but out of the utmost humility. For Her to reject Her claim is to reject Her Lord.

However, when it comes to the claims about Life, the same dynamic operates (i. e., that this Life has been given to Her as a charge to keep), but the same conclusion of exclusivity does not operate. For the Body is the Body and not the Head. The Body has life only insofar as it is connected to the Head. But this property of Life does not inhere in the Body per se, but only by way of union. Thus, it is God who always is the source of Life. It is the Holy Trinity Who makes alive, and who are we to gainsay that which He enlivens? The Church does not dispense Life, or rather only does so in the way that Her Lord has given Her to do. But that she does so is only at the behest of Her Lord and through His very own Life and Power. So, does God enliven those who believe on the name of the Church's Lord but yet who are outside Her doors? We can only offer a charitable and humble, "This is the Lord's doing and we are made humble in our own eyes." That is to say, that the Orthodox Church is the Church, which charge can be given no other body of Christians does not logically entail that there is no Life anywhere outside the Church's doors. For God is everywhere, and everywhere God is there is Life for those who will accept it.

You then go on to state what you cannot substantiate on the basis of Scripture alone:

I am saying that Scripture sets the parameters both of the Gospel and of the Church. I am saying that Scripture gives no warrant whatsoever for a particular church to say, "plus all the things that we've been doing," and then call this, "Life." Even more, I am saying that Christ has given no such authorization. It is unthinkable that the One whom Scripure so fully reveals in the simplicity of the Gospel should have entrusted extra conditions for Life to a particular church with no indication that he had done so, no indication of what these conditions are, and no way of determining which church has this extra-Biblical but oh so essential truth.

Where does Scripture say that it does these very things? What do you make then of the authorization of Christ given to the Church to bind and to loose in Matthew 18:18-20? Doesn't the very context there give the Church quite broad parameters in the matters of discipline to bind and to loose? What about St. Paul's words in 1 Timothy 3:15 in which the Church is called the "pillar and ground of the truth?" Where in all of Scripture does Scripture say this about itself? What else can one make of Ephesians 4:16 where St. Paul indicates that it is in and among the very constituent members of the Body that it builds itself up into love into Him Who is the Head? Doesn't this indicate that the Church has within Herself all that is necessary for maturing into the fullness of Christ? (Not, of course that She has this of Her own self, but that it is both given to Her in and by Her Lord and held and given back to Her Lord fivefold.) But where does it say in Scripture that Scripture has this capacity to bring the whole Church into full maturity in Christ? And doesn't this all logically entail that the Church will necessarily incarnate these things in ways that must be "in addition" to what the Scriptures say? You'll have a hard time arguing otherwise.

You then say, "I have seen particular churches throughout history fall into heresy or some other sin far too often to think that it can't happen to any other church." And this is indeed a great danger. But now let me ask you this? How do you know what is and isn't heresy? Why, for example, don't you reject the Trinity? I know you can infer it from Scripture. But you can also infer Arianism. How are we to decide between these two interpretations?

Furthermore, name one heresy that the Orthodox Church as a whole has espoused.

You then follow your statement on heresy with, "The only defense against this, and only sure way by which the Church will triumph agaisnt the gates of Hell, is to know the will of God as it has been given in Scripture." But in point of fact, isn't it the case that churches and groups have fallen into heresy precisely on the basis of their interpretation of the "will of God as it has been given in Scripture"? This is the largest problem with your entire thesis: you fail to take into account that there is never a case in which the Scripture is not interpreted. Or, to state it in the affirmative: every encounter with Scripture is interpretation.

In fact, I'm willing to bet that you read the Scripture almost exclusively in translation. Which means that you always encounter Scripture with two layers of interpretation between you and it: a) first your own presuppositions and worldviews and b) those of the translators. Even if you read the Scriptures in the original languages you will never divest yourself of a).

So it will always be the case that we will be asking the question, "Whose interpretation?" and "On what authority?" If you just naively assume that your interpretative methods are better than the Church's, your interpretation better than Hers, you have not merely voided the Word, you have avoided it by enshrining your own mind and thinking over it--even if done naively and without malice.

Finally, you are right to note that if the Orthodox Church is the Church of Christ, then She is the pillar and ground of the Truth, She has been led by the Spirit into all Truth (John 16:13), then She cannot be in error, She is, in a word, infallible.

But your final conclusion is both illogical and deeply offensive: "It is a church that has outgrown the need both for humility and for repentance. I can think of nothing more devastating to the soul." I wonder that you have the courage to say such a thing of a body of Christians who preceded you, who gave you your Bible, who gave you the standard of orthodox doctrine that you use every day, who kept and guarded the mystery of the Holy Trinity for you so that each day you can pray in His name, a body of Christians who have been persecuted and killed for the Pearl of Great Price they have been charged to keep. Though Orthodoxy claims to be the Church, she does not judge those outside her bounds as having outgrown the need for humility and repentance.

That being said, it is not a wonder that even in Her deep humility, Her sorrowful repentance, the very claim She has been given Her by Her Lord is offensive to you. It is a bracing jolt. It offended me when I first came across it. And it turned me off to Orthodoxy on my first very superficial encounters many years ago now. But there is no help for that. She cannot take out the sting without draining Herself of the Truth that is Hers.

Posted by Clifton at February 25, 2005 03:00 PM | TrackBack