Tripp wrote me in response to my earlier blog on Two Different Churches?. My mind has most definitely been on other things, but I have been thinking about this topic as well and I wanted to respond to Tripp.
Quoting from Tripp's email:
You use this phrase a lot: "hypostatic union of the Church with Christ"...What the frick frack does this mean. I get the syntax. I have the vocabulary. I just have no idea what it means. How does this theology capture the imagination? How does it reflect the movement of the Spirit within the heart of the Christian (no need to read individual there...that is a later discussion)? I am not sure I understand what this theology is. So, I do not know if I share it in some "free churchy" way.
Hypostatic union is admittedly a bit jargonish, but it is important jargon. I use it because of its "precise" referent as opposed to some of the confusion of categories that can arise by speaking in "popular" terms. First, as you all well know, I'm sure, hypostatic union comes from the Greek term, hypostasis, that arose out of the fourth century Christological and Trinitarian heresy crises. (John D. Zizoulas gives an excellent historical and theological grasp of what this term came to mean for Christians in his book, Being as Communion, Chapter 1, pp. 27-65.) Essentially, hypostasis refers to the "persons" of the Godhead, inclusive of the Incarnate Christ. One essence (ousia) in three persons (hypostaseis). In Christ, two natures (ousiai) are present in one person (hypostasis): humanity and divinity. By the union of the human with the divine in the person of Christ, human beings are healed of sin and death. But most importantly, human beings partake of the nature of God (2 Peter 1:4)--in his energies not his essence, but that's another discussion--and thus our union with God is predicated on our union with Christ. This union, taking place through the person (hypostasis) of Christ, then is our "hypostatic union."
However, I should clarify, that according to Scripture (start with Ephesians, the whole book, which will keep you busy for a while) and the Church Fathers, there is no union with Christ apart from union with his Body. This is predicated upon the Incarnation. Thus, our hypostatic union with God is not founded on an individual response and individual redemption, but is founded on our being members of his Body, the Church. The reason for this is that the Spirit constituted the Church on the day of Pentecost, and the Spirit continues to constitute the Church as the Body of Christ. When the Spirit redeems, he does not do so in isolation. Rather, he grafts branches on to Christ's Body, the True Vine, the Church. By the Spirit's working the elements of the Eucharist become the mystical Body and Blood of our Lord, the ingestion of which enables the communicants to participate in God in a way that is the same constitutive working of the Spirit as that which brought forth and sustains the Church.
Whether or not that captures the imagination--and frankly for me, it is terribly imaginative! I was giddy for weeks contemplating what this meant, and it completely rearranged my soteriology--is beyond the point. I'm sure someone could express it in more "connective" ways. The fact of the matter is, it is truth. Whether it's appealing or not, whether it "communicates" in our culture or not, it is that reality with which we have to do.
Tripp continues:
Secondly, is there a way we can go back and replace "individual experience" with "personal conscience?" In Romans, Paul speaks of conscience. He speaks of personal revelation at 9:1 by the Spirit. Is there room, in that apostolic expression for what I am getting at? maybe. I am still working that out. But this is the stuff that baptists actually like about Paul. His radical vision may give room for other radical visions. We can only proclaim in faith what we have received in the Holy Spirit. Paul had no other authority...yes? Maybe.
I know that this is different than the "individual Pope" idea that I was playing with. I will stand down from that and live into this pauline
expression. It gives room for expreience of the new creation on a personal level that may or may not be connected (hypostatic?!) to the Church. This may be the prophetic witness to the Church? I dunno.
First of all, I don't have my Greek concordance, so looking up all the usages of "conscience" in Paul and the New Testament is not possible at the moment. It would be important to do so, so as to understand whether what Paul (and Scripture) mean by conscience is the same thing we take it to be.
But I will note one thing: of what is Paul speaking in Romans 9? Not of any dogmatic theology, but rather he is asserting his deep desire that Israel accept the Messiah, a desire that runs so deep he could wish himself accursed. In other words, his conscience isn't the basis for any truth claims regarding God, the Christ, the Church, etc. Thus, this is not, as Tripp asserts, a "personal revelation by the Holy Spirit." Or, if it is, it is merely a revelation about Paul's experience within himself. I think this is an important point to note.
Furthermore, in every account of Paul's conversion experience (Acts 9, 22, 26) he submits his vision and personal experience to the Church in the person of Ananias. He goes to Ananias who then declares to him what he had experienced, and then--note this--gives him his commission (Acts 9). Paul's ministry came from God, but it came by way of the Church.
Not only that, in Romans 13, we are given this picture of governmental authority, it doesn't bear the sword in vain, etc. Then Paul tells us to submit to the governmental authority, for the sake of conscience! But if our conscience is an individual guide, and it tells us to rebel against authority, how can we obey Paul's apostolic command? (Granted, I'm painting this in very simplistic terms, but am doing so to highlight my point about conscience.)
Conscience can be hardened. It can also be shaped and molded. Conscience, because based in part on experience, is not an infallible guide for the Christian. Rather our conscience must be trained and educated by the Word (the living Word Christ in his Body the Church, and the written Word, the Scriptures). Where our conscience disagrees with the clear witness of Scripture and Church, we have a problem. We are not infallible authorities. Although I had intellectual concerns about venerating icons, about asking the intercessions of Mary, and so forth, I had to ask myself: By what authority do I disagree with the Church? If the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, he will not lead persons to contradictory truths (though he might lead them through different pathways). That is to say, the Spirit will not lead one believer to venerate icons, and another to condemn venerating icons. One of these individuals is wrong, conscience or no conscience.
So it is imperative we educate our conscience in the Truth. We do get glimpses of that Truth in our experience. I'm not denying that. But we cannot base the education of our conscience in that experience, because it can (and usually does) lead us astray. The most pertinent example I can think of is those pop songs that sing of infidelity: "How can it be so wrong, when it feels so right?" How? Because your conscience is wrong.
So we can certainly have "new" experiences, but these experiences must be tested against the Truth found in Christ, thus in his Body, thus in the Church, thus in its Tradition (which includes Scripture). There have been many occasions throughout the history of the Church when individuals had an experience of God that was at first received with hostility. But when that experience was tested against the Church--and not against the individual experience itself--it was found to be consonant with the faith once for all delivered to the saints. I'm thinking here of Gregory Palamas and his "new" way of understanding theosis.
Is there room for prophetic witness? Of course. That's what the monastic movement was all about. But that prophetic witness carries no authority in itself. If it carries the authority of the Spirit, the Spirit will reveal it to be consonant with the Truth. Which means the Church will eventually, in modern terms, "buy off on it."
Posted by Clifton at February 21, 2003 01:42 PM | TrackBack