Introduction
The first and primary life question that one must ask is "Who is the Christ?" But inescapably attendant upon that question is a second one, "Where is the Church?" For if one answers correctly the question of who Christ is, one will be led necessarily and directly to ask, "Where is His Church?" The two questions are inseparable. One cannot ask the first without asking the second. And one cannot be mistaken about the answer to the second without also being mistaken about the answer to the first. Which is to say, if we properly understand who Christ is, we are free to properly understand where the Church is. But if we are mistaken in where the Church is, we will also be mistaken in who Christ is. Ecclesiology is Christology.
In light of that, then, the question as to where the Church is is not an idle one. It is fundamentally important. So important, in fact, that our answer will either confirm a proper Christology or deform it. We might have Christ and keep Him, if we rightly understand His Church. But if we have Christ and do not rightly understand His Church, we are in very real danger of losing Him Whom we have once held.
Two Models
There are many ecclesiologies, many answers to the question, "Where is the Church?" But these ecclesiologies all contain one or another of two fundamental models. Either one has a "Branch Model" of ecclesiology, or one has an "Exclusive Model" of ecclesiology. The Branch Model essentially states that no one church or group is exclusively the Body of Christ, but that the Body of Christ is made up of the many branches or groups that all trace their lineage back to a common trunk. That trunk is variously thought of as the historic Church founded on Pentecost in Jerusalem, or the Apostolic Deposit given in the first century, or the common confession of Christ as Lord, or any number of variations on similar themes. The point however is that in the Branch Model all churches or groups share some common essence with all the others, so that despite the visible divisions and differences between groups, there is an invisible or supernatural reality that they all share in, which allows them to claim to be part of the Church of Christ.
The Exclusive Model essentially states that a particular church or group is, actually, the Body of Christ, and all other churches or groups are departures from it. The point of the Exclusive Model of ecclesiology is that the essence of the Church, even if invisible and supernatural, must have a visible body in which the Church is incarnate. If the Branch Model depends for its unity on an invisible and supernatural quality shared across and among all the various churches, the Exclusive Model locates that unity in a particular quality or set of qualities in this particular incarnate church or group. Other churches or groups may approximate this one, but only if they have that essential marker or all of those essential markers, that distinguishes this particular body from the rest, can they actually be said to be in unity with this body, and thus are, actually, the Body of Christ. What is that essential marker, or those essential qualities, varies depending upon the claims to exclusivity of the particular group under consideration. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, distinguishes its claims from other groups, at least in part, on the basis of what it says about the office of the bishop of Rome. Other groups, such as the Restoration Movement churches, distinguish their claims on the basis of a pure and simple body of New Testament doctrines and practices they distill from the Scriptures: if a church or group believes and practices these particular things, and neither takes away from them or adds to them, that church or group is the New Testament Church, the Body of Christ.
Now, let it be said that variations on these two models do exist. Indeed, in a sense, the Exclusive Model acknowledges the truth of the Branch Model that there is an invisible and supernatural reality to what it means for the Church to be what it is. And some churches and groups who fundamentally posit the Branch Model do seem to say things that sound awfully exclusive. But when one examines the fundamental tenets of various ecclesiologies, these really are the two and only two models by which ecclesiologies are shaped. That some groups do not hold purely to one or another model does not eliminate the fundamental shape of their particular ecclesiology, even if such impurities may result in radically misformed products. Moreover, some churches or groups dynamically migrate from one model to the other, and in the process of such migration hold confused and confusing variations and mutations of these two models. But again, these are the two templates from which all ecclesiologies are drawn.
The Theandric Principle
That being said, one should not suppose that each of these models are parallel to one another. That is to say, the failure of one model does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the other model is correct. It may be the case that both models are incorrect, but for different reasons.
For example, if the Exclusive Model does not, in fact, substantiate the claim of a particular church or group to be the true Church, the failure or error is not necessarily because this particular church or group does not exhibit the Branch Model. The Exclusive Model may actually be the fundamentally correct model (and I will actually be arguing that it is), but the essential quality or qualities that a particular church or group claims grants it its status as the Church is, in fact, the wrong quality or qualities. For example, if the Roman Catholic Church claims that what makes it the Church is that it is in communion with, and submission to, the see of Peter (assuming that is, indeed, what Roman Catholicism claims) and that claim, in fact, is not really what makes a church or group the Church, then though Rome has claimed the right model, she has argued the wrong reason. On the other hand, if the Branch Model does not, in fact, substantiate the claim of a particular church or group to be the true Church, the failure or error will not necessarily be because this particular church or group claims an improper essence for all churches or groups, but rather, the Branch Model is, itself, fundamentally flawed, and no common essence could substantiate such an ecclesiology from this model. (And, indeed, this, too is what I will be arguing.)
Ultimately, if we are going to determine which of these two models is the model to at least be preferred, or is fundamentally the only proper model, we are going to have to establish this by virtue of a criterion or set of criteria. Here is where ecclesiology must conform to Christology. For if a church or group (or a plurality of them) is to claim status as the Body of Christ, they must share in the nature of who Christ is. As St. Peter says in his epistle:
Inasmuch as His divine power hath freely given to us all things for life and piety, through the full knowledge of Him Who called us by glory and virtue, by which He hath freely given to us the very great and precious promises, that through these ye might become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption which is in the world by desire. (2 Peter 1:3-4, The Orthodox New Testament, © 2004 Holy Apostles Convent; emphasis added)
And as Jesus, Himself, prayed:
"And I do not make request for these only, but also for those who shall believe on Me through their word; in order that all may be one, even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us, that the world might believe that Thou didst send me forth. And the glory which Thou has given Me I have given them, in order that they may be one, even as We are one: I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected into one, and that the world may know that Thou didst send Me forth, and didst love them even as Thou dist love Me. Father, I will that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am, in order that they may behold the glory, that which is Mine, which Thou gavest Me; for Thou didst love Me before the foundation of the world." (John 17:20-24; emphasis added)
Thus, the nature of the Church must take that nature from the paradigm of Christ. Christ is the incarnate God, the God-man, the Theandros, the perfect union--without confusion, change, separation or division--of the human and divine. Thus, if the Church is to partake of Christ's nature, she must exhibit this union of humanity and divinity. And the exhibition of this humanity and divinity must be demonstrated in a unity that is not just divine, but is also manifested humanly.
With this fundamental principle in mind, we can now turn to our models.
Examining the Models
If the Branch Model fails, it does not fail because of its good intentions or in its charity. That adherents to the Branch Model want to take seriously the unity of the Church is clear. That they also take seriously the dominical injunction to love one another as oneself, to not judge one another, is also clear. So if the Branch Model fails, it fails despite these noble and laudable intentions.
But fail it must, for the Branch Model does not ultimately allow for the full implications of the humanity of the Church. In an incipient Gnosticism, it says the visible divisions between churches and groups are neither substantial or real, what is real is the supernatural and invisible divine reality. Humanity is negated by virtue of the divine reality. But this is not the theandric union of Christ.
Furthermore, the Branch Model ends up in an infinite regress of reductionism and a final relativization of all truth claims. For the Branch Model necessarily includes groups whose beliefs fundamentally oppose one another: baptism is for the remission of sins and thus necessary for salvation versus baptism is merely a symbol and in no way necessary for salvation; or the Eucharist is merely a remembrance of Christ's Passion versus the Eucharist is mystically the Body and Blood of the Lord. By necessitating the inclusion of these contradictions, the Branch Model ultimately becomes an exercise in finding the lowest common denominator necessary to be able to extend to cover all those who claim the name of Christ. But this process ultimately relativizes truth claims by saying of these competing claims, "They don't matter. What matters is the divine reality which makes us one." But where does this relativization end? The Branch Model can give no answer without ultimately becoming exclusive in its claims. But once it has done that, it has shifted from its paradigm.
By its very nature, then, the Branch Model is a false ecclesiology. It cannot be remedied without destruction to its fundamental premise.
The Exclusive Model, on the other hand, can, and indeed, does, fulfill the requirements of the theandric union necessitated by Who Christ is. First, in locating the Church in a specific group it takes seriously the necessity for the Church to manifest the union of the human and divine. The Church must be incarnate, and that incarnation must obtain in a visible group. The Church is, as the Branch Model stresses, a divine and hidden reality, but it is also, and must also be, a human and visible one. The Exclusive Model takes seriously the divine unity, but it also takes seriously the concomitant human unity. Groups with competing claims cannot be unified. As St. Paul says:
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all be speaking the same thing, and that schisms may not be among you, but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same sentiment. (1 Corinthians 1:10)
So, although the human unity is created by the divine unity, it is the manifestation of that divine unity: having one mind, doing the same things, sharing the same identity.
Now, the Exclusive Model of ecclesiology is the necessary condition for a church or group to actually be the Church of Christ, but it is not a sufficient condition. That is to say, a church or group may claim to be the Church, but offer as the foundation of its claim something that is actually not the essential foundation for being the Church of Christ. Simply because the Exclusive Model is the proper model for the ecclesiology which reflects the exclusivity of Jesus and the scandal of His particularity, it does not also follow that any predication of the essential content of that model will do. No, for a church or group to be the Church, it must not just conform itself to the form of exclusivity, but must also fill its claims with the necessary and essential matter that gives reality to such claims.
Not all who claim to be the Church of Christ are.
It is to those essential conditions that we will turn next.
Posted by Clifton at March 4, 2005 12:00 PM | TrackBack