The Church
Who is the Church, the Body of Christ? As a Protestant, I was taught that it is comprised of all who have saving faith in Jesus Christ, regardless of denomination or creed. Those who accept this view believe that the Church is comprised of Methodists, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Pentecostals, and all others who have accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior.
I understand the Roman Catholic teaching to be that those Christians in communion with Rome make up the true Body of Christ; those Christians who are not in communion with Rome are "brothers in Christ," yet not part of the Body of Christ. The Catholic teaching on the Church is further complicated (in my mind, at least) by the teaching that the Eastern Orthodox churches are schismatic, but still have a valid priesthood due to unbroken Apostolic Succession.
The Orthodox seem to have the narrowest view. They view the true Church as being comprised of those who embrace Eastern Orthodoxy. The various churches (Greek, Russian, Romanian, etc.) within Orthodoxy are more properly called "jurisdictions" for the Church is one, varying only in language and custom, but united in faith and doctrine. Rome is seen as heretical (not merely schismatic), and Protestantism in all its forms is merely an outgrowth of Rome. The Orthodox make a distinction between the Church and the "company of the saved"; God will determine who falls into the latter category. The "heterodox" may be saved, but it is only by the grace of God. This is also true of the Orthodox, who receive His grace via the sacraments.
I have read Catholic and Orthodox thinkers describe the Protestant view as "believing in an invisible Church." More recently, I read an article which took issue with this description, saying that some (most?) Protestants believe in a Church that is quite visible, and yet has more than one valid historical manifestation.
Visit a few blogs and you will see that the identity of the Church is, for many thinking people, a hotly contested issue. You'll see angry diatribes, protests filled with emotion, and carefully crafted arguments. The writers hurl words at each other, words like "clearly," "obviously," and "ignorance." Put them together, and you can make a sentence that will make some people think you are very smart: Obviously, your ignorance is steeped in Protestant traditions that stem from Luther's heresy. That's not a direct quote, but it mirrors the type of statments I've seen.
I wonder if people can get so caught up in being part of the true Body of Christ that they forget to behave as Christians.
I understand the Roman Catholic teaching to be that those Christians in communion with Rome make up the true Body of Christ; those Christians who are not in communion with Rome are "brothers in Christ," yet not part of the Body of Christ. The Catholic teaching on the Church is further complicated (in my mind, at least) by the teaching that the Eastern Orthodox churches are schismatic, but still have a valid priesthood due to unbroken Apostolic Succession.
The Orthodox seem to have the narrowest view. They view the true Church as being comprised of those who embrace Eastern Orthodoxy. The various churches (Greek, Russian, Romanian, etc.) within Orthodoxy are more properly called "jurisdictions" for the Church is one, varying only in language and custom, but united in faith and doctrine. Rome is seen as heretical (not merely schismatic), and Protestantism in all its forms is merely an outgrowth of Rome. The Orthodox make a distinction between the Church and the "company of the saved"; God will determine who falls into the latter category. The "heterodox" may be saved, but it is only by the grace of God. This is also true of the Orthodox, who receive His grace via the sacraments.
I have read Catholic and Orthodox thinkers describe the Protestant view as "believing in an invisible Church." More recently, I read an article which took issue with this description, saying that some (most?) Protestants believe in a Church that is quite visible, and yet has more than one valid historical manifestation.
Visit a few blogs and you will see that the identity of the Church is, for many thinking people, a hotly contested issue. You'll see angry diatribes, protests filled with emotion, and carefully crafted arguments. The writers hurl words at each other, words like "clearly," "obviously," and "ignorance." Put them together, and you can make a sentence that will make some people think you are very smart: Obviously, your ignorance is steeped in Protestant traditions that stem from Luther's heresy. That's not a direct quote, but it mirrors the type of statments I've seen.
I wonder if people can get so caught up in being part of the true Body of Christ that they forget to behave as Christians.
posted by Wordsmyth at
12:28 PM
13 Comments:
I like to call myself Christian and I happen to worship in a Roman Catholic church. But the fact of my worshipping in a RC community is more a case of where I happened to find myself. I just happened to be born into a Catholic family. I have a bit of a problem wnith being told what I believe, which is often the case within Roman Catholicism and indeed beyond. To have a handle on exactly what constitutes Catholicism, I would have to have read and totally absorbed not only holy scripture but also the church fathers like Augustine and Aquinas, and an entire cannon of papal encyclicals just for starters. Ploughing through the catechism is tough enough. I'm afraid I'm not that clever or at least lack the necessary skills of application. The majority of what I have read I have no problem with but there are some aspects that I struggle with. So I have to content myself with being a bit of a maverick Catholic. I have friends from a variety of other church communities and am involved in a number of ecumenical activities. I have often felt ill at ease with my own church but ultimately feel strongly that that is where I am called to be in spite of the discomfort I sometimes feel. Therefore I haven't, as yet, jumped ship. I feel no more or less saved than my friends in other churches and believe that God is just a little bit bigger than all of us and so he can occasionally be credited with a bit of mystery in his workings. We don't have all the answers and the sooner we admit that the sooner we will all begin to make progress. Frankly I think we get distracted by technicalities from our true calling. By the way I enjoy reading your blog...
You wonder? I think there are many church groups who are guilty of idolotry at this point, as they are now openly "coming together to worship their own coming together to worship."
If their central motivator in gathering to worship is that they are the Right Ones and they are enjoying and maintaining this position, partly to show up the others or educate them as to how things really ought to be done, then all pretense of spiritual reasons for the activity are out the window.
Thanks to both of you for sharing your thoughts. I tend to be uncomfortable around people who wholeheartedly embrace ALL the teachings of their church/denomination without any reservations. It's one thing to say "I don't understand, but I accept" after having mulled something over, thought about it, pondered for a spell. But it's another thing to blindly follow the leader, and vigorously defend something you've never really thought about.
In some ways, I think struggling with the teaching of the group is a gift. No one really struggles with or against the teaching of the group in cults. Blind acceptance ultimately means you'll drink the Kool-aid even if it doesn't taste right. That mentality always leads to disaster.
I almost always have more trouble with the spirit (collective and individual) of people in a group, than with what that group has people stand up and say (or sit down and write). I guess that's just me.
Being right isn't a spiritual or upright motive for doing anything at all.
i'm starting to believe that jumping ship is a bad idea. i did it myself...but...
there isn't a ship that you won't have a problem with. that said, there might be ships that are so bad, you really can't stay. not sure. but the whole...i'm too good for this place, or i disagree so i'm gone...it seems to lack something truer and stronger:
to stick with the group, like you stick with your family, because they need you, whether or not you always like each other.
Faithfulness is a virtue. You sometimes have to be careful what you are willing to support, condone or be associated with, though. My group kicked me out ten years ago because they don't want my kind around. I've still never felt right about going somewhere else.
Whether or not to jump ship ... tough call. I definitely don't think it should be done at the drop of the hat. When you leave, you experience a great deal of pain, and so do the people that you leave behind. On the other hand, some ships are sinking. If that's the case, you have to leave.
I think this is true for any organization or entity. It's just particularly painful if the group was familial, or supposed to be familial.
I think the whole phenomenon has made me really appreciate people who purposefully, deliberately, sincerely embrace and welcome others. They say things like "Please have dinner with us. It wouldn't be the same without you." And they mean it.
Sometimes you see it happen with children. "Johnny is on our team. If he can't play, we won't play either." Feeling like you belong to a group, and knowing that the members of the group feel that the quality of the group would be diminished without you ... that's a special feeling.
The Beatitudes have some insights on the group/family/blindly following support thing. I think Jesus said something like "if you're not willing to leave it all for me, you're not worthy...". How would that apply? Stick with the group but be willing to leave at any time? hmmm. Give your heart and soul but be ready to leave it all? Search out Christ on your own, tolerate the idjuts?
And, of course, the biblical image of a ship seems to involve it breaking into pieces, and people swimming in to shore under their own steam, or holding onto pieces of it to stay afloat. I picture three guys holding onto a piece of poopdeck, loudly proclaiming "Hold onto THIS piece! This is the ship now! Everything else is just rubble from it, but this is the original bit!"
sometimes i think that i can apply the whole we're one--we should stick together even if we annoy each other--idea...in my circles of friends.
sometimes a group of friends forms naturally, and there are a couple of individuals who aren't as cool or fun as the others, yet...when you make an effort to include them...it somehow seems to make the group dynamic better.
a fellowship that is based on a principle of exclusion is somehow not as...full.
which is why i appreciated the rebuke from tony once when i said, "let's get together, but i really wanted it to be just us, not x."
A fellowship is, by definition made up of your peers (fellows: peers)
It's always pretty contrived when a group is cobbled together from a motley bunch of people with no real connection to each other.
Great site loved it alot, will come back and visit again.
»
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home