Being the Church: An Eastern Orthodox Understanding of Church Growth 1498293158, 9781498293150

Citation preview

Being

the

Church

Being

the

Church

An Eastern Orthodox Understanding of Church Growth

Edward Rommen

Being the Church An Eastern Orthodox Understanding of Church Growth Copyright © 2017 Edward Rommen. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401. Cascade Books An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3 Eugene, OR 97401 www.wipfandstock.com paperback isbn: 978-1-4982-9315-0 hardcover isbn: 978-1-4982-9317-4 ebook isbn: 978-1-4982-9316-7

Cataloguing-in-Publication data: Rommen, Edward. Being the church : an Eastern Orthodox understanding of church growth / Edward Rommen. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2016 | Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978-1-4982-9315-0 (paperback) | isbn 978-1-4982-9317-4 (hardcover) | isbn 978-14982-9316-7 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Orthodox Eastern Church | Church growth | Church growth Biblical teaching Classification: BX320.3 .R66 2017 (paperback) | BX320.3 (ebook)

Manufactured in the U.S.A.

07/17/17

All Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version,® copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Contents List of Figures and Tables | vii Preface | ix Introduction Counting, Success, and Ecclesial Growth | 1 1 Ecclesial Being

On the Nature of the Church’s Existence | 19

2 Ecclesial Unity On the Oneness of the Church | 51 3 Ecclesial Goodness On the Holiness of the Church | 86 4 Ecclesial Beauty On the Catholicity of the Church | 123 5 Ecclesial Integrity On the Apostolicity of the Church | 151 Conclusions | 177

Bibliography  | 181 Index  | 189

Figures and Tables Figure 1: The Hierarchy of Being  |  27 Figure 2: Manifestations of the Church  |  59 Figure 3: A Matrix of Unity  |  60 Figure 4: Ministry Inventory  |  82 Table 1: Ministry Participation  |  83 Table 2: Sacrament Inventory  |  118 Table 3: Holiness Index  |  121 Table 4: Growth of Holiness  |  122 Table 5: Age Structure  |  149

Preface

S

ome time ago I was extolling the beauty and power of the Orthodox divine liturgy at a gathering of missiologists. After my presentation one of the other participants asked, “If the liturgy is really all that beautiful and powerful, then why aren’t the Orthodox churches filled to overflowing?” Of course, anyone who has experienced an Orthodox liturgy would be hard-pressed to deny its overwhelming beauty. But the questioner did make a valid point, and I find myself unsettled by the apparent discrepancy between the ideal of liturgical beauty and the actual number of participants drawn to the liturgy. I ask myself why it seems so hard to get people to come, why more don’t respond to our invitation to “come and see,” and why even the faithful aren’t more faithful. If, as we rightly claim, the liturgy really is beautiful and attractive, wouldn’t more people attend, wouldn’t more flock to experience it? And if they did, wouldn’t our parishes be growing, constantly increasing in membership? Just asking these questions puts me into the company of all those authors who over the last half-century have explored what they call the growth of the church. The desire to study this aspect of the church was born of a similar dissatisfaction when, in the 1930s, Donald McGavran noticed, and would not accept as normal, the lack of growth among his organization’s mission stations in India. As he studied the situation, he concluded that the reason for this lack of growth was a failure to implement the Great Commission. The churches and their members were simply not being obedient in reaching out to convert their friends and neighbors. He went on to develop a series of principles1 that he claimed would bring the missing growth. These included numerical growth as the mark of a healthy

1. Rommen, Die Notwendigkeit, 60–70.

Preface

church,2 the need for social scientific research to determine existing growth patterns and predict future growth, and the use of cultural givens, such as group conversions and receptive peoples, to develop strategies of growth. Driven by the prospect of numerical growth, these ideas caught on and, during the next decades, developed into an active movement, with studies being done all over the world, courses being taught at seminaries, and countless publications being produced. As these principles were brought to North America, some of the cross-cultural elements were discarded and the pragmatism of the marketplace became the source of new techniques of growth.3 Today church growth in America is a booming business replete with seminars, conferences, consultants, and, of course, publications. By way of illustration, a search for the phrase “church growth” on Amazon.com returned 20,388 titles on February 26, 2016. A great deal of time and energy is being invested in seeking and proposing ways to grow churches. In spite of all of this activity, the growth of American churches has not been very impressive. Oh sure, there are a few well-known megachurches. But according to the National Congregations Study in 2012, churches with over a thousand participants represent only 2.4 percent of the total number of churches, only 10.2 percent of churches have between 251 and 1000 participants, 20.6 percent have between 101 and 250, 24.1 percent have between 51 and 100, and 42.7 percent have fewer than 50.4 In other words, 66.8 percent of all congregations have fewer than 100 worshipers. Many of the largest denominations are losing ground.5 According to the Pew Foundation, between 2007 and 2014 the Christian portion of the general US population fell from 78.4 percent to 70.6 percent, with evangelical Protestants down 0.9 percent, mainline Protestants down by 3.4 percent, and the Catholic Church down by 3.1 percent.6 The reason for all this may be that most of these efforts at growth are actually focusing on the wrong things. Perhaps we have to shake the fascination with numerical growth in order to get at the real potential of ecclesial maturity. I believe that some of the church growth authors are aware of 2.  This principle has been more or less uncritically accepted and appears to be the fundamental assumption of almost every book on church growth that I have read. 3.  “History of Church Growth, Inc.” 4.  “Size of Congregation.” 5. Between 2000 and 2010 the Southern Baptist Convention was up by 0.1 percent, the United Methodist was down 4.7 percent, Evangelical Lutherans lost 18.2 percent, and the Presbyterian Church (USA) lost 22.0 percent. Ibid. 6.  Pew Research Center, “America’s Changing Religious Landscape.”

x

Preface

this and are exploring alternatives. Many readily admit that it is not simply a numbers game and even suggest that that idea is a misrepresentation of the movement’s thought. In one book, for example, the author promises not to trouble the reader with marketing gimmicks and salesmanship. Yet, near the end of it he openly promotes the standard church growth principle that scientific analysis can and should be used to facilitate the numerical growth of the church. He then gives an unabashed apologetic for using a survey instrument offered by his company, which they will analyze for a price.7 So, in spite of downplaying the importance of numbers, this doesn’t give the reader the impression that they are interested in anything but numbers. Some do point to the importance of spiritual factors, but only as they relate to numbers. Others, trying to downplay the influence of the marketplace, urge us back to biblical church growth, seeking to use the Scriptures, but do so as justification for numerical growth. Therefore, their reservations not withstanding, they always seem to come back to numerical growth as the underlying, unshakable presupposition of whatever they write. Let me illustrate this phenomenon by taking a closer look at one of the better books of this genre, Gary L. McIntosh’s Biblical Church Growth. McIntosh seems to be aware of the concern that church growth methods appear to be derived from the social sciences. To counter this, he insists that, “contrary to popular opinion church growth is not based on sociology, marketing, or demographics.”8 But if it is such an obvious misunderstanding, then why do we hear it so often? According to him, “church growth is a biblical concept, exploding from the life-giving nature of God.”9 From that promising beginning he goes on to point out that what we need is presumably not numerical growth (although he does not say that explicitly), but a church that is faithful or “obedient to God’s commands.”10 Does he mean all of them? Perhaps, but he does not say that either. Instead, he adds a commandment: faithfulness to God’s “purpose in the world.” This he defines as bringing unbelievers into the church, which will bring “at least a measure of numerical growth.”11 It appears, then, that the commandments to which we are to remain faithful are effectively reduced to just the one, the Great

7. Schwartz, Natural Church Development. 8. McIntosh, Biblical Church Growth, 9. 9 Ibid. 10. Ibid., 19. 11. Ibid., 20.

xi

Preface

Commission12—and that involves numerical growth. In any case, it is the only command he deals with. I am not suggesting that this is not of paramount importance, but it is definitively not the only commandment we are to obey and not the only way in which the Church is to grow. On a more hopeful note, he indicates that his book is not about the how, the doing of ministry, but rather the why, the being of ministry.13 However, that distinction does not survive the pressure to do, and the book turns out to be a how-to manual after all, that is, on doing the right things for the right reasons.14 Throughout the remainder of the book, McIntosh elaborates on a series of principles that give some service to biblical ideals, but which are all cast as things to do and are all coopted for the purpose of achieving numerical growth. Commitment to the word of God, for example, is advocated primarily because that has been shown to bring the potential of numerical growth.15 However, this commitment to Scripture seems to be limited, since there is no mention of Jesus’ warning that “the path is narrow” and that “few will find it.” Moving on, he suggests that our priority should be to glorify God. But in a clear misinterpretation of St. John’s Gospel (15:1–8), McIntosh ignores the context and traditional interpretation16 and suggests “a better explanation,” namely, that glory is given to God by bringing fruit in the form of converts,17 that is, by growing numerically. Later we are told to trust the Holy Spirit, not for guidance, for conviction of sins, or for the spiritual life, but for the growth—yes, the numerical growth—of the church.18 McIntosh tells us that we need pastors who faithfully serve as God’s fellow workers in fulfilling the Great

12. Ibid., 17. 13. Ibid., 24. 14.  “Faithful churches become effective not simply because they do the right things (hows) but because they understand why the right things need to be done.” Ibid., 25. 15. Ibid., 45. 16. Note, for example, that St. Chrysostom associates this fruit with the disciples’ love for one another and for Christ, with abiding in him and his words, and with the keeping of his commandments. “Hence He maketh his discourse credible, for if the bearing of fruit pertains to the glory of the Father, He will not neglect his own glory. ‘And ye shall be My disciples.’ Seest thou how he that bears fruit, he is the disciple? But what is, ‘In this is the Father glorified’? ‘He rejoiceth when ye abide in Me, when ye bear fruit.’” John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, Homily 76 (John 14:31; 15:1). 17. McIntosh, Biblical Church Growth, 56. 18. Ibid.

xii

Preface

Commission, training the right people for growth.19 We also need the right philosophy, which, as it turns out, is a form of growth-related pragmatism. If a particular technique misses its target, we simply discard it and develop a new culturally informed approach that does yield growth.20 In echo of McGavran, we need the right plan, one that targets receptive individuals.21 We need to develop simple administrative structures that facilitate growth—no mention of the ecclesial structures given by God in Scripture and tradition.22 What becomes evident in the reading of this book is that whatever misgivings the author might have about the fundamental ideas of the church growth movement, and whatever efforts he has made to derive his principles from Scripture and orthodox doctrine, what he comes up with is clearly informed by a persistent desire for one thing, namely, numerical growth. One has to be impressed by the strength of this underlying idea. It is so powerful that every biblically and theologically sound principle mentioned in the book is amended or transformed into something that is designed to yield numerical growth. Thus, the promising idea of being the Church dies amidst the many suggestions on how to do the church in North America. However, what if being and not doing was the one factor that determined the Church’s life, potential, and mission in the world? Here I am referring to the importance of a group of believers actually being or existing as a Church. The reason for asking this question first is that an organization, even a Christian one, that is not actually a Church cannot experience ecclesial growth no matter what we do or count. In other words, how can something that is not a Church experience “churchly” growth? Because of its unique nature as a living, spiritual organism, the Church has to be measured in terms of things that are appropriate to that nature. So we will need to define just what those things are. Once we identify the types of growth that are unique to the Church, we can then ask how we can go about measuring those things. Not all of those things can be counted. But, there are most definitely some things that we can count. My concern is that we count the right things and that we draw legitimate conclusions based on what we do count. 19. Ibid., 81–83. 20. Ibid., 105. 21. Ibid., 132. 22. Ibid., 137.

xiii

Preface

So if a group of people actually is a Church, then the gradient from unhealthy to healthy, dying to living, declining to growing, does not directly establish its ecclesial status. Simply being the Church brings it under the lordship of Christ and makes it beautiful and establishes the potential for “churchly” growth. So does just being the actual Church make it healthy? No! I do not want to make a simplistic equation between being the Church and automatically being healthy and growing. However, what I am saying is that in order for an entity to be healthy in the way the New Testament describes that health, and in order for a group to grow in the way growth is talked about in the New Testament, that group will have to actually be a Church. Again something that is not a Church cannot possibly grow in a “churchly” way. There are, in fact, many groups that are not Church (even though that is what they are called) and for that reason the growth that they may demonstrate is not growth of a biblical or ecclesial kind. We should not copy or even envy this type of growth. All the doing in the world cannot bring biblically defined growth. It first has to be a Church, then it can grow as a Church. If all of this is true, then the very first question we need to be asking is whether or not a particular group really is a Church. History and tradition show us that the Church is constituted by the gathering of believers to celebrate the Eucharist, presided over by a priest duly ordained by a canonical bishop.23 This theological context is of utmost importance to an Orthodox understanding of church growth, because it is the Church’s unique nature that determines the nature of its growth and thus what standards we will use to measure that growth. Unfortunately, many church growth thinkers seem to bypass this question and simply assume that the group they are studying is Church, taking it upon themselves to define its nature and thus the nature of its growth as they see fit. But, bracketing the question of the Church’s being (its ontology) removes the constraints imposed by its nature and frees the individual to use any standard of success available (such as the prevailing idea of profit and loss) and any techniques (marketing, branding, statistical analysis) deemed effective in achieving that kind of success. But, ignoring the fundamental nature of Church leads to an attempt to manage non-essential (as in not belonging to its character) aspects of its being by means of supposed growth—producing techniques before establishing its existential viability as Church and thus the ways in which it can actually 23.  Afanasiev and Plekon, Church of the Holy Spirit.

xiv

Preface

grow. In other words, we wind up just doing, that is, managing an organization, rather than being the Church. So I am wondering if this is the best we can do. I realize that simply criticizing other models will not do. In order to make a real contribution to the discussion, you would have to offer an alternative—not a new technique, but a revised vision of an Orthodox approach to mission, evangelism, and the growth of the Church. I think this will involve a thorough reevaluation of what it means to be a Church, what that implies for the type of growth we can and should expect, and how that determines how we might go about nurturing that kind of growth. It means rededicating ourselves to the teaching that part of what makes the Church the Church is the unity (one), goodness (holy), beauty (catholic), and integrity (apostolic) that is created by God himself, and not the conditions or structures imposed on it by its sociocultural context, the marketplace, or even the theoreticians of growth. This could be the foundation of a renewed Orthodox perspective on growing the Church. To begin with, we will have to review the whole idea of “Ecclesial Growth” (introduction), its measurement, and its relationship to the ideal and the actual. Does the actual determine the ideal? How does the ideal affect our conception of the actual? If the ideal exists, what can it mean for it to grow or mature? Against what standards could the growth of the ideal be measured? Can it be counted? As part of this reevaluation we will also have to revisit the question of “Ecclesial Being” (chapter 1), that is, what it means for the Church to exist, and how its origin in the Divine is the source of its own unity, goodness, beauty, and integrity. Speaking of the Church in Corinth, St. Paul declares that the faithful there are God’s fellow workers, his field, his building (1 Cor 3:9). So, what does it mean for the Church to belong to God? I know that others24 have dealt with this idea. However, church growth experts seldom take it up,25 and when they do it is often under the influence of a truncated theology and market-driven concerns.26 What I would like to do is make an attempt to shed the North American culturalisms that we have so uncritically adopted—conceptions of success, the bigger-is-better mentality, and so on—and start with the most fundamental questions of ecclesial ontol24. Küng, Church. 25. Not a word about the nature of the Church in Searcy and Henson, Ignite, or in Schaller, 44 Ways. Very little even in McIntosh, Biblical Church Growth. 26. Reising, ChurchMarketing 101.

xv

Preface

ogy. If I can clearly describe ecclesial being, its source, and nature, I believe that it would help us understand that its primary task is not to flourish according to the ideals of society. Instead, it is to be a radical alternative to the world around it, a light in the darkness, and a place where a personal relationship with Christ is proclaimed and enabled. The Church, like any existing entity, has a set of defining characteristics or properties that transcend all local expressions of it. These properties of being always belong to it if it truly exists as itself. Because the Church is the body of Christ, its attributes are actually the attributes of Christ himself, and these attributes of the Church would be innumerable. However, the holy fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council spoke of only four—unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity. Each one of these is derived directly from the isomorphic, personal relationship between the Church and Christ. For that reason they “clearly and accurately define the character of the Church whereby, as a theanthropic institution and community, she is distinguishable from any institution or community of the human sort.”27 Interestingly, traditional ontology also speaks of four transcendental aspects of being: unity, goodness, beauty, and integrity. These correspond roughly to the categories of the Creed 28 and both can be used to help us define and describe the being of the Church. If the Church is truly the Church, it will be a unified whole and be possessed of “Ecclesial Unity” (chapter 2). Before we consider the Church in its manifold actualizations, we see it as a single being, unified and one. The glorified Christ is the one who has completed the work of salvation. In him alone is the fullness of life (Acts 4:12). By extension, his body possesses an unreduced completeness of being. It is the context where Christ is made manifest, where he can be known, and where life in him can be sustained, be made complete (Phil 1:6; Col 2:10; 2 Tim 3:17; Heb 13:21). This completeness applies not only to the faithful, but also to those who do not yet believe, since the Church offers to the world the fullness of life in Christ. So, what can it mean to be made complete in Christ, to mature into wholeness? What form does the oneness of the Church take? How does that oneness serve its mission in the world?

27.  Popovich, “Attributes of the Church.” 28. In the Orthodox Church the only creed that is used is the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which is the text of the first ecumenical council (325), amended by the second council in 381.

xvi

Preface

If the Church exists as the fullness of Christ, if it is the very body of Christ (1 Cor 12:12–27), then it will also have an inherent goodness or holiness. The idea here is that every existing thing is good for some purpose, some end. Christ, in particular, is good for our salvation, our sanctification. Thus, “Ecclesial Goodness” (chapter 3) points to the benefits that Christ provides through the Church. The Church is the context in which we work out our salvation. As such, its primary importance is the salvation and the sanctification of its members. Those who are members of the body of Christ are in communion with him and are made holy by that union with him. The fathers and the ecumenical councils aggressively insist on the holiness of the Church. They say it is an essential and immutable attribute of the Church; not a function of its members, but rather the sanctifying grace of Christ. So, what does that holiness look like? How is it achieved and manifested? Of what benefit is the Church to the world around it? If the Church is holy, then it possesses an inherent dignity, an “Ecclesial Beauty” (chapter 4). Because that beauty is Christ himself, that beauty is catholic and universal, that is, it incorporates all aspects of creation; all things in heaven and on earth are enveloped in that beauty. It can universally be recognized as Church because its beauty is apparent to all. Being alive in Christ, the faithful reflect something of that divine beauty, the harmony of his being (Ps 96:9). It is mirrored in a general way in all human beings (Ps 90:17; 2 Sam 1:19). Interestingly, the Septuagint’s words for beauty do not occur often in the New Testament (but see Rom 10:15 and those that bring the gospel, where the writers prefer the synonym “glory” (Matt 6:29–30). Speaking of his own glory, Jesus, in his high priestly prayer, prays for his followers in whom he is glorified (John 17:10), that is, a glorification that will be seen in his disciples. This may well refer to the inner beauty of the soul and the virtues (1 Pet 3:4; 1 Tim 2:9), but it will certainly have an external expression. In any case, this close connection between beauty and glory, as well as that of the members to the body, indicates that the Church is to be something glorious, something beautiful, and is to be so in all places. So, what can it mean for the Church to be beautiful? How is that practiced? How does the Church mature into that beauty so that it can be universally recognized as such? Finally, if the Church actually exists as Church, it will be characterized by truth. “Ecclesial Integrity” (chapter 5) speaks to the fact that the Church either is or is not the Church. There can be no middle ground. So how do we know what the Church is intended to be? How can we tell if an xvii

Preface

otherwise Christian group is or is not the Church? The answer is that it would have to be built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20). The content of the gospel was entrusted to the apostles; they themselves became the very personification of the Church. That is, they were simultaneously the depository of and the guarantors of everything Christ had handed down to them. It would be fair to say that where the apostles were, there was the Church. When that message was then entrusted to the first generation of bishops, they continued in the role as guardians of apostolic tradition. What makes the Church the Church is faithfulness to the foundations of the apostles. So, what does that look like today? What does this mean for its witness to the world? Once we return to these existential foundations, we will be able to draw some conclusions about the relationship between the ideal and the actual, about the nature of the maturation process, and about the things we must be and do to facilitate that growth. Here I will offer some evaluation of the general path that church growth thought has taken. Here I will cast the vision of being the Church. *** As already indicated, throughout this book I will be making a distinction between the Church and other Christian organizations that are not Church in the strictest sense of that word. In European languages, this distinction is easily expressed. In German, for example, one can speak of die Kirche (the Church) and eine Gemeinde (a fellowship). In English29 this is not quite so easy, since we have gotten used to calling almost all Christian fellowships churches. Therefore, what I will do in this text is use the capitalized Church to indicate an entity that is truly Church and the lowercase church for all other occurrences of Christian groups. This is not meant to call into question the faith of those who worship and serve in Christian fellowships. It is, rather, an attempt to force us to take more seriously the very idea of Church and to be as consistent with our terminology as is possible.

29. In British English a distinction is made between a Church and a chapel. However, that is too focused on the building to be of much use to us here.

xviii

Introduction Counting, Success, and Ecclesial Growth

We’re born with the ability to see the world numerically just as we’re born to see the world in color.1

I

n my preface I expressed some concern over the uncritical application of business models and statistics (counting) to the Church. What troubles me is not so much the counting itself. That, as we shall see, is a very natural and understandable human activity and there are, without a doubt, certain aspects of the Church that can be meaningfully counted. My concern is that we have tended to simplistically or more problematically apply these practices to the Church, as if it were a business, before we determine what it means to be a Church and, given its unique nature, how it might be expected to grow. Doing that gives us an inaccurate picture of the Church’s health and tends to divert our attention away from the real standards of ecclesial growth (success) that are presented in the Scriptures. So, in this chapter I’d like to (1) say something about the very natural, understandably human practice of counting (just about everything), (2) review the ways in which counting made its way into classic Church growth thinking, (3) lay out what I think is a reasonable standard of ecclesial success, and (4) reflect 1.  Savage, “Is the Ability to Count Innate?”

1

Being the Church

briefly on how and to what extent counting can be used when evaluating the growth of the Church. Counting: An Innate Human Faculty

According to some researchers, human beings have an innate ability to count, that is, a built-in “system for recognizing and representing numerosities, the number of items in a given set.”2 We seem to do this effortlessly, counting almost everything in our world, from cars to babies, animals to computers, taxes to inventory, and members to worshipers. In doing so we are assuming that just about anything can be expressed as a numerical value and that expressing it that way establishes at least the perception of precision, objectivity, and control. Somehow, it makes us feel more secure if we can put a number on things. This ability involves several cognitive mechanisms. Subitization is used for counting a small (three to five) number of things at a glance without explicit enumeration. I can see that there are three cars backed up at an intersection without counting them. When I enter the sanctuary (altar) on Sunday morning before the liturgy, I can instantly determine how may altar servers I will have with me for the service without actually counting them. Then there is estimation, which is used to count much larger sets, but still without enumeration. We can say with some degree of reliability that there are ten sheep in a particular herd. I can say with some accuracy how many worshipers are present just by glancing at the nave. Finally, there is enumeration, by which we explicitly find the total number of items in a set. For example, we count the actual number of worshipers, the amount of money contributed through tithes and offerings, or the number of seats in the building. This, as it turns out, is a complex process.3 To count, you first choose the objects you want to count. You thereby assume that anything is countable and that the use of positive integers to quantify objects can be generalized. This is called the abstraction principle of counting, the principle that any discrete element is countable. Counting implies the use of symbols. If you want to count a collection of, say, six household objects, you put a series of symbols, spoken words, in a one-to-one correspondence with the objects to be counted. These number-words are always in 2. Ibid. 3.  De Cruz, “Why Humans Can Count,” 63–65.

2

Introduction

a fixed order. The last number that is put in correspondence with the last item to be counted represents the total quantity of items. This application of the principles of cardinality and ordinality is quite a sophisticated cognitive achievement.4

That not withstanding, we seem to be constantly, spontaneously counting. It is something that comes naturally to us, something that is simply part of what it means to be a human being. It is also interesting to note that this level of complexity has “generally arisen when and where people grow crops or keep herds; hunter-gatherer bands, who have no herds or other stores of wealth, need not keep track of surpluses, or balances of trade.”5 In other words, the ability to count seems to have developed in response to certain specific needs, as a means of facilitating adaptive behavior or enabling us to interact with and respond to the world around us. Consider some of the reasons for counting. One reason for counting is analysis, the attempt to break sensory data down into manageable and understandable pieces. We count attendance in order to identify patterns and cycles or seasons of increase or decline. We also count in order to assess our position or our resources. The census mentioned in the Scriptures (2 Sam 24:9) resulted in Israel’s leadership knowing how many soldiers they had available. We do the same with membership totals, which help us determine a church’s “assets,” i.e., its basic wealth. Another application of counting is organization. We often seek to manage large groups of people by breaking them down into smaller groups. At the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus had the multitude sit down in groups, in ranks of hundreds and fifties (Mark 6:39–40). Similarly, the organization of the twelve tribes of Israel at the first census, initiated by Moses in the wilderness of Sinai (Num 12), seems to have been a system for organizing everything from armies to taxes to judges. We also count in order to measure progress, compliance, and performance. We can, for example, count the number of new believers and, at least in some sense, measure the degree to which we are fulfilling the Great Commission. Similarly, we can count the participants at special events in order to evaluate the effectiveness of a particular outreach strategy. It is also possible to use counting as a predictive tool. If our giving is increasing by a certain amount each month, we can project that increase onto the next year and establish a baseline for a new budget. Likewise, attendance patterns can be projected in order to help us set attendance goals. 4. Ibid., 64. 5.  Savage, “Is the Ability to Count Innate?”

3

Being the Church

Counting also helps us with planning. If, for example, we should discover that our attendance is falling at certain times of the year, we might be able to craft strategies to counteract that decline. In the end, counting has to do with control, or at least the impression of control. It gives us insight into our past and the ability to manage immediate and future circumstances. Counting and the Mission of the Church

Since counting is such an integral part of human nature, it should not surprise us to find examples of it in the Scriptures. In Acts 4:4 we read about the thousands of people who joined the early Church. Of course, there is no indication that this kind of counting is something that we are required to do. There is no such directive. It is simply the natural inclination of the human mind and it is just what we humans do. This is no doubt why we also find examples of counting in the early stages of the modern missionary movement. In 1792 William Cary published his famous “Enquiry” in which he gave a numerical summary of the Church’s missionary task by providing population figures and religious data on various countries.6 Similarly, in 1865 Hudson Taylor presented “China’s Spiritual Need and Claims” by giving the proportion of missionaries to the population in eighteen provinces of China.7 More recently, Ralph Winter gave a statistical summary of the missionary task by numerically representing people groups, total population, and the number of missionaries for various unreached peoples around the world.8 All of this counting is a perfectly natural response to the complexity of the missionary task. But there are some who have given this innate numerical competence an added significance by making it the mainstay of a systematic missiological theory. Counting in the History of the Church Growth Movement9

Right from its inception counting seems to have been at the very heart of the Church growth movement. In 1934 Donald A. McGavran was the field 6.  Winter and Hawthorne, eds., Perspectives, 231–32. 7. Ibid., 248. 8. In Starling, ed., Seeds of Promise, 92–93. 9. Rommen, Die Notwendigkeit, 59–84.

4

Introduction

leader of the Indian mission of the Disciples of Christ, whose eighty missionaries were involved in hospitals, homes for lepers, orphanages, agricultural projects, and evangelistic outreach. As McGavran began to evaluate the effectiveness of these activities, he came to the conclusion that there was no positive relationship between the results and the great deal of time and money that had been invested. After more than fifty years, the mission could only point to two thousand members. McGavran was deeply moved. “We had gone to India in order to win this vast and poor country and to make disciples of its inhabitants. There was no doubt that we had done a great many good works. But we had failed in our main task.”10 Additional studies showed that 134 of the 135 mission stations of middle India were not growing. Census data revealed similar tendencies. Between 1921 and 1931 the number of Christians in that part of India had grown by only 11 percent. That was not even 1 percent of the general population. McGavran found very little understanding for his dissatisfaction among his colleagues. Some justified the lack of growth by suggesting that their listeners were simply not receptive. Others viewed the stagnation as the result of inadequate commitment and constant strife among the missionaries. But neither explanation satisfied McGavran. He knew of churches in other parts of India that, in spite of these obstacles, were growing. So he tried to find out why some missionary works appeared to be so alive while others met with little or no success. During the course of the next eighteen years he analyzed not only the work of his own denomination, but also that of the Mennonites, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Anglicans, seeking the reasons for their growth. That work led to the formulation and testing of a number of working hypotheses. The fundamental theory and theology of the church growth movement grew out of this systematic observation and analysis of the churches’ experiences among various peoples of India. In 1954 McGavran visited seven African nations, studied the churches that had been planted by various mission societies, and compared his hypotheses with these very different African conditions. He assembled the results and published them under the title Bridges of God.11 Between 1955 and 1960 the United Missionary Society sent McGavran to Latin America, Thailand, the Philippines, and the Caribbean to analyze the churches it had planted in these places. During the following years the concepts and principles of the church growth movement were systematized and published in the book 10. McGavran, Still Building, 390. 11. McGavran, Bridges of God.

5

Being the Church

Understanding Church Growth.12 These ideas were further popularized in the Church Growth Bulletin and through the School of World Missions at Fuller Theological Seminary. With this school, the church growth movement had not only a theory, but also a credible academic platform. This drew international attention and sparked missiological debates and a worldwide reexamination of traditional missionary work. This interest resulted in numerous studies and the formation of church growth–related seminaries and institutes, and it gained broad influence on world evangelization. Counting and the Core Principles of the Church Growth Movement

As indicated, McGavran’s dissatisfaction was rooted in the absence of growth characteristics of the church in his area of India. He blamed this on a systematic devaluation of the Great Commission. According to him, missionary work had gradually begun to occupy itself with activities other than the communication of the gospel. Many of the missionaries thought leadership training was their primary task. In addition, there was a widespread assumption that social engagement or the changing of social structures was an elementary function of the Christian mission. The idea that we should be calling people to faith and building living churches was, it seemed, not seen as an acceptable goal. As McGavran saw it, the heart of the problem was the way the Great Commission was to be understood. Two aspects of his interpretation of Matthew 28:19–20 were decisive for the development of church growth theory. First, the word ethne was not to be taken as a geopolitical entity, a nation-state, but rather as an ethnic grouping. This purely ethnic understanding was expanded to include various castes, social classes, and tribes. For that reason, “people groups” became the primary target of evangelization. Second, he redefined the scope of the term disciple. It did indeed refer to the movement from non-belief to faith in Christ. It also meant that all loyalties to the former belief system or religion would have to be abandoned. But that did not mean withdrawing from one’s society. The new believer was to stay in place and begin to Christianize the social structure. However, for this to happen, enough people would have to come to faith at the same time to achieve a kind of critical mass. So the idea of discipleship was expanded to include not only individuals but also whole groups, casts, and clans. For McGavran, the Church’s most pressing task was to establish rapidly growing churches among the receptive peoples 12. McGavran, Understanding.

6

Introduction

of the world. And so he began his search for reasons that would explain why some churches grew and others did not. In the course of his studies he developed five core principles. The Legitimacy of Quantitative Growth as a Goal and Measure of the Church’s Mission

The very heart of the church growth movement is an uncompromised commitment to the Great Commission. Everything in the church can be measured in terms of a group’s ability to fulfill that command and bring new believers into the church. For that reason, a growing membership became an indispensable aspect of the worldwide mission of the church. According to this approach a church is made up of countable individuals and not counting them does not reveal a particularly spiritual attitude. Statistics, which describe past and present growth, provide valuable information about the health of the church and the success of missionary activity. This does not mean that we should be adding just anyone to our memberships lists, even those who don’t want to follow Christ. Quantitative growth assumes qualitative growth. Growing membership alone will not lead anyone to Christ, but it does reflect the current situation and methodology of the church-planting enterprise. There are two categories of data needed for this type of analysis. One is growth rate, that is, the change in the total number of Christians in all the churches of a denomination in a particular region. These numbers must also take into account geopolitical or administrative changes. This will help visualize church development. Times of growth, stagnation, and loss will become apparent. Further refinement of the statistical analysis will show the relationship between the Christians and particular homogeneous units,13 which could include political, linguistic, social, and ethnic groupings, and allows the researcher to identify rapid church growth and receptive peoples. The other category is the type of growth. Once the growth rates have been determined, an effort has to be made to distinguish between biological, transfer, and conversion growth. Biological growth comes when the 13.  This was one of the most controversial principles of the church growth movement, since it seemed to accept or even promote various forms of racism. The criticism was so intense that it prompted several published attempts to defend the idea. Cf. Wagner, “How Ethical”; Wagner, Our Kind of People.

7

Being the Church

children of believing parents adopt the faith. While this is important, it is extremely slow and often does not even keep pace with the growth of the general population. Transfer growth is growth at the expense of other churches. When people move they often join churches of other denominations. While this kind of growth will maintain the total number of Christians, it will do little to fulfill the Great Commission. The third type of growth is growth by conversion, that is, as a result of individuals outside the church becoming Christians for the first time. It is only through this type of growth that the evangelization of the world can be accomplished. If the goal of missions is to plant indigenous churches in every region and every culture of the world, then churches will have to grow by conversion. Following this reasoning, a mission or a church can only be considered healthy if a large portion of its new members fall into this category. The Validity of Sociological Analyses for the Development of Growth Strategies

This is what most people think of when they think of the church growth movement—the sociological and statistical analysis of growth patterns. The importance of this principle can be seen in the various workbooks or manuals of church growth that have been published. Ellas, for example, offers a booklet that contains blank forms for recording attendance patterns, calculating growth rates, etc.14 The basic counting of worshipers or members is also extended to include the relative receptiveness of specific segments of a population, that is, trying to assess the rate at which they are responding to the gospel. Accordingly, the study of and reflection on the current situation and development of a church should take place against the backdrop of a growth curve. However, it is admitted that statistical knowledge by itself is not enough. It only achieves its proper meaning if it simultaneously leads to an understanding of the reasons for the growth, the factors that God used to bring increase to a particular church, and an understanding of the conditions under which the church develops or remains static. The research methods of sociology can be of enormous help in finding the answers to these complex questions. For example, the analysis of the social context of a church can reveal how political turmoil, opinion trends, external financial support, etc., has affected growth. An analysis of social structures can show 14. Ellas, Measuring Church Growth.

8

Introduction

whether or not the gospel has moved along the lines of kinship and if it has been readily accepted by certain social strata or subgroups. In addition, a careful description of the churches can reveal whether or not internal factors, such as a charismatic leader or a revival, were responsible for unexpected growth. In any case, the church growth movement is committed to the idea that sociological research can help the observer of growth rates to recognize and evaluate the conditions that have contributed to growing membership. On the basis of such information, effective strategies can be developed for evangelism and steady growth. The Principle of Homogeneous Units

The theory of homogeneous units is one of the more controversial aspects of the church growth movement. McGavran, as many before him, recognized that people do not come into the church only as isolated individuals but also as complete groups, groups that have certain factors in common, such as language, traditions, economic standards, general religious views, that is, as “homogeneous units.” McGavran’s use of this technical term was rather elastic. In one case, he was referring to a local tribe in which a particular language was spoken. In another cases, he was describing much larger and less clearly defined groups, such as middle-class Japanese living in a metropolis as opposed to rice farmers in rural villages. Indians of the Fiji Islands are a homogeneous unit when compared to Melanesian residents. In India there were the various castes and language groupings. In this way, a given population could be compared to a mosaic. Each part of the mosaic represents one homogeneous unit. Each one has its own lifestyle, its own standards, its own educational level, and its own living space. According to McGavran, this sociological fact was important for the growth of churches because people are more likely to become Christians if they do not have to cross racial, linguistic, or class barriers. The missionary who makes it possible for individuals to become Christians without having to cross such barriers is going to be more effective than those who do not eliminate or even establish such obstacles. Since people feel comfortable with their own, we must not demand, in the name of unity, that a working-class church suddenly incorporate academics. Before we can teach about the unity of all in Christ, we have to allow new believers to move along the lines of homogeneous units, into the churches where they feel comfortable and where they can then be taught. This monoethnic strategy is in keeping with the 9

Being the Church

Great Commission and our desire to reach every aspect of society, every cast, every tribe, every language. The Principle of Varying Receptivity

The church growth movement suggests that the concept of varying receptivity is one of the most obvious aspects of human nature and society. McGavran observed that certain strata of a given population that have long been resistant to the gospel may suddenly become receptive. Among resistant peoples it is often not possible to plant more than a single church, while receptive groups develop many new churches and cells. This variation in receptivity affects every aspect of missionary work and must be studied if we are to understand church growth. We need to recognize openness to the gospel and adjust our methods and personal involvement accordingly. The search for causes of this variation in receptivity is one way to do this. For example, people who have recently moved have been destabilized and are thus more open for things that are new, such as the gospel. Travel, military conquests, political change, and sudden loosening of rules and laws all tend to increase receptivity. Once discovered, strategies can be developed to take advantage of this openness. That is not to say that we should abandon resistant peoples, but rather that we make a minimal investment of resources and personnel in the resistant groups and invest most of our resources in the receptive groups. Missions should concentrate their resources on receptive peoples in order that the gospel may penetrate and secure continued growth. The Principle of Group Conversion

As already indicated, the church growth movement promoted the conversion of entire homogeneous units. According to McGavran, the only way we will be able to reach whole peoples is if those people can be converted as a group. This kind of people movement can, for example, take place when a leader makes the decision for the group. However, since the Great Commission envisions each individual coming to a saving knowledge of Christ, it becomes necessary to follow the group decision by facilitating the actual conversion of each person. For this reason, a people movement is often referred to as a multi-individual conversion.

10

Introduction

Counting in North American Church Growth Theory

It was only a matter of time before these ideas were appropriated for the North American context. According to McIntosh, two of the most influential books in “spreading Church Growth thought in North America” were How to Grow a Church by McGavran and Arn and Your Church Can Grow: Seven Vital Signs of a Healthy Church by C. Peter Wagner. What is significant about these books is not only the continuation of their fascination with quantitative growth, but the fact that they began to thrive in the prevailing pragmatism and consumerism of North America. In his article “How to Evaluate Missions,” McGavran states that if a particular strategy brings the desired result (numeric growth), it is to be retained and developed, while all others are to be discarded.15 Wagner cites three sources for this pragmatism: (a) cultural sources, the rules that establish behavior and societal norms (of success); (b) historical sources, a phenomenological approach that systematically evaluates methodologies according to their success; and (c) theological sources, passages of Scripture that lend themselves to this task (success)-oriented perspective.16 He also spends quite a bit of time trying to convince the reader that it is acceptable to take a scientific approach to the church.17 Bringing in the idea of science, like counting itself, seems to lend the whole project some sought-for precision, weight, or seriousness. He does not spell out exactly what science he is referring to, simply calling it “church growth science.”18 But he does give a few examples throughout the book. One of them has to do with what is called the “composite membership factor,”19 which has to do with growth rate analysis—in any case, counting. Absent many of the cross-cultural elements, the North American application of church growth thought focused its attention on the so-called health of the church. Not surprisingly, the spiritual health of the church was measured in terms of growing membership, and so counting became an indispensable tool for “diagnosing church health.” According to McGavran, “It’s like a doctor diagnosing the sickness of a patient. Until he knows what the disease is, how can he prescribe a cure? Until the church diagnoses the 15.  McGavran, “How to Evaluate Missions.” 16. Ibid. 17. Wagner, Your Church Can Grow, 41–46. 18. Ibid., 45. 19. Ibid., 69–70.

11

Being the Church

difficulty, how can the problem be remedied.”20 Of course, statistics are not everything, but they are a kind of shorthand that compresses the information that the members and the leaders of the church ought to have.21 Another North American development was the coupling of church growth theory with the secular idea of marketing. According to George Barna, “the church is a business. It is involved in the business of ministry. As such the church must be run with the same wisdom and savvy that characterizes any for-profit business.”22 Given the allure of the profit motive, the idea of “Selling Jesus”23 has become quite popular in some quarters. Other North American contributions focused on particular aspects of the church, such as Sunday morning attendance. For example, in his book 44 Ways to increase Church Attendance, Lyle Schaller, another North American popularizer of church growth thought, provides a series of practical suggestions designed to increase Sunday attendance. He writes to readers who he hopes “believe that every worshiping community should be actively engaged in confronting more and more people with the Good News that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior and that their own local church is not exempt from that imperative.”24 Without defending the idea, he simply assumes that more is better. That is success and it seems to be the underlying conviction that keeps counting alive and prominent in North American church growth literature. What Standard of Success?

But what is success—success in the Church? The easiest way to define success in general is to do so in terms of the fulfillment or accomplishment of some purpose or desire. Accepting that aim as legitimate basically determines the measure used to gauge success. So in a capitalistic society the sole purpose of business will be profit. If that is achieved, if there are higher levels of production, increasing sales, etc. it is considered a success. Even so-called non-profit organizations measure success in terms of funds raised, aid distributed, and so on. In a narcissistic society like ours, the primary purpose of individual existence will be the fulfillment of personal 20.  McGavran and Arn, How to Grow a Church, 60. 21. Ibid., 61. 22. Barna, Marketing the Church, 26. 23. Webster, Selling Jesus. 24. Schaller, 44 Ways, 16–17.

12

Introduction

desire. This can be measured in terms of the amassing of material wealth, the prestige afforded by position or education, and of course the myriad ways in which people amuse themselves. There can be little doubt that these two factors, profit and ego satisfaction, are the prevailing aims of our culture and therefore determine the primary means of measuring the performance of just about anything in North America. It has become (understandably) difficult for us to even think of success in any other terms. The other thing that affects our understanding of success is that contemporary culture expects and practically demands what it calls progress. The idea is that, as our knowledge becomes both broader and more unified, we will experience continued or perpetual progress as envisioned by Enlightenment thinkers such as Condorcet (Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind) and Kant (What Is Enlightenment?). This relentless progress is, of course, not limited to advances in technology, but includes social, political, and moral progress. Having grown accustomed to the constant evolution of technology, the late-modern individual tends to generalize and project this movement on almost every area of life. For that reason, we think that the economy always has to grow, that clubs, schools, sports teams, just about everything has to produce more members, more graduates, more wins, etc. In other words, we have transformed almost every aspect of modern life, including the Church, into a businesslike entity regulated by some kind of profit/loss motive. Here again, having gotten so used to the truly impressive effectiveness of the techniques used to achieve and measure that profit in the business world, we quite naturally generalize and apply this overall approach even to nonbusiness entities such as the Church. A number of authors25 openly state that the Church is, in fact, a business with a product, the gospel, to sell and a mandate to promote that product and generate (demand) profits in the form of converts. By demanding constant growth, we quite naturally turn to counting (in some form) as our chief means of evaluating this performance, that is, according to some variation of the profit/loss standard. While not quite as explicit, most church growth thinking is based on a similar assumption that bigger is better, more is always the goal. Were I to follow this course, I could tell you that during the decade from 2006 to 2016 our average Sunday morning attendance has grown from 62 to 101. That is a 63 percent increase in just ten years. But what does this tell us about the growth and the health of my parish? It could mean that we 25. Barna, Marketing the Church; Reising, ChurchMarketing 101.

13

Being the Church

are reaching new people with the gospel (in keeping with the Great Commission, Matt 28:18) and/or that we are convincing more of our members to attend regularly. Now these things could be important indictors of ecclesial health, but only if they can be shown to be expressions of the spiritual maturity that facilitates active, selfless witness or the progressive sanctification of the members that enflames the desire to be with and worship the living God. The numbers themselves are not important. In other words, numeric growth is not the actual goal, but is rather a—albeit welcome—side effect of a completely different kind of growth, namely, a maturing that is commensurate with the fact that the Church is a living, multilayered, spiritual reality, the body of Christ, and not a one-dimensional profit/loss business. That is precisely why the Scriptures give us a very different standard with which to measure the growth of the Church. The Greek word for “success,” ἐπιτυχία, only occurs once in the Bible (Wisdom of Solomon 13:19, LXX) and it fits the general definition (see above) of the achievement of some aim. However, the word for “grow” or “increase,” αὐξάνω, does occur in both the Old Testament (39x) and New Testament (23x). In most cases it refers to the growth of animals, plants, the hair on our head, the young, and so on. It is also used with specific reference to our faith and to the Church. But there we are told that the growth is caused by God alone (1 Cor 3:6; 2 Cor 9:10), that its object (focal point) is Christ (Eph 4:15), and that it involves our witness, faith, spiritual maturity, grace, good works (Col 1:6, 10; 1 Pet 2:2, 18). In any case, nowhere is this kind of growth, the growth of the Church, spoken of in terms of numbers. Here there is no talk of profit or of ego satisfaction. Ephesians 4 is a good example of this perspective on ecclesial growth. In this chapter St. Paul refers to several growth-related themes: he talks about children growing into adults, about teaching that leads to increased knowledge, about the Church maturing into the fullness of the knowledge of Christ. So, it is this process of maturing into knowledge, and not growth rates and numbers—simple counting—that St. Paul sets up as a standard for measuring the growth of the Church. So if we apply Ephesians 4 to the command to witness (Matt 28:18), we see that what we need to measure is our faithfulness to Christ, that is, our willingness to keep his commandment to witness, and not simply the results of that activity. That means that even during times of persecution and decline the Church is a success if it remains faithful. Of course, decline (as may be the case in North America)

14

Introduction

could just as well be the result of unfaithfulness. In any case, the model works. If the goal determines the model of success, we may also have to reconsider our understanding of success in terms of the actual, God-given goal of Christian outreach. In the Great Commission (Matt 28:16–20; Mark 16:15–16; Luke 24:47–48; Acts 1:8) Jesus specifically commands the apostles to take the message of his coming kingdom into the whole world. The grammatical structure of the passage is of special interest. Matthew 28:19– 20 read as follows in the Greek text: “πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν.” What is so interesting here is that the command contains only one explicit imperative, namely the word μαθητεύσατε (make disciples). That word is followed by two participles, βαπτίζοντες (baptizing) and διδάσκοντες (teaching), which receive an imperative sense from the word μαθητεύσατε. The whole construct is preceded by the term πορευθέντες, which also acquires an imperative sense.26 So the actual command here is to make disciples (not converts), to do so by baptizing and teaching, to do so as you go out into all the world, and to keep on doing that until Christ returns. In other words, the goal of our outreach is not simply an ever-larger number of punctiliar conversions, but rather an ongoing, continual ministry of lifelong discipleship. So if conversion is simply the first step in an ongoing process of becoming like Christ, and if conversion itself is no guarantee that the individual will ever move on to that living discipleship, then it cannot possibly be used as our measure of success. Nevertheless, there is something very appealing about that approach, since it is so easy to count and statistically analyze conversions. We can talk about percentages of increase and trends, and complement ourselves with detailed reports on who is and who is not being converted, etc. Unfortunately, that kind of preoccupation with numbers creates a false sense of accomplishment, the feeling of having completed a task. But if conversion is not the end of the process, but, at its very best, just the beginning of fulfilling the Church’s responsibility to the world, then we will have to look to the state of the ongoing process of facilitating maturity in Christ to find a way of measuring success. The problem here is that the things that St. Paul speaks of in Ephesians 4 cannot be easily counted and do not yield to statistical analysis. How do you count “edifying of the body 26. Cf. Rommen, Die Notwendigkeit, 23, 150–54. See also Rommen, Into All the World, ch. 5.

15

Being the Church

of Christ,” “the unity of the faith,” “the knowledge of the Son of God,” “the fullness of Christ,” “no longer being children,” no longer being “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine,” and “growing up in all things into him?” Yet, these are the very things that constitute the success of the overall mission of the Church. These are the very things that we will need to find a way to assess in order to determine the extent to which we are fulfilling the Great Commission. Counting and Ecclesial Growth

One of the things that should limit an overreliance on counting is the simple fact that not everything can be counted. You cannot count the essence or nature of God. That is one and simple. But you can count the three persons of the Godhead. And yet, in spite of the possibility of counting the Divine Persons, St. Basil warned about the limits and the potential dangers of such counting. In delivering the formula of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, (Matt 28:19) our Lord did not connect the gift with number. He did not say into first, second, and third, nor yet into one, two, and three, but He gave us the boon of the knowledge of the faith, which leads to salvation, by means of holy names. So that what saves us is our faith. Number has been devised as a symbol indicative of the quantity of objects. But these men, who bring ruin on themselves from every possible source, have turned even the capacity for counting against the faith. Nothing else undergoes any change in consequence of the addition of number, and yet these men in the case of the divine nature pay reverence to number, lest they should exceed the limits of the honor due to the Paraclete. But, O wisest sirs, let the unapproachable be altogether above and beyond number, as the ancient reverence of the Hebrews wrote the unutterable name of God in peculiar characters, thus endeavoring to set forth its infinite excellence. Count, if you must; but you must not by counting do damage to the faith. Either let the ineffable be honored by silence; or let holy things be counted consistently with true religion. There is one God and Father, one only begotten, and one Holy Ghost. We proclaim each of the hypostases singly; and, when count we must, we do not let an ignorant arithmetic carry us away to the idea of a plurality of Gods.27 27.  Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 18.44.

16

Introduction

So do we count the Church or not? Obviously, you cannot count the essence or substance of a Church, but you could count, among other things, its members. But then we will have to ask ourselves, just what are we learning when we do enumerate, let us say, membership over time? Does the pattern of membership development tell us anything about the presence of Church or does it simply reflect an accidental attribute of a group of believers that may or may not indicate something about their being or growing as a Church? Just because a church is increasing in size doesn’t mean that it is a Church. And if it is not a Church then whatever movement might be observed cannot be seen as ecclesial growth. So, if there are some things about the Church that we cannot count, or if counting does not always tell us anything about the ways in which we expect a Church to grow, should we be counting? And if so, to what end? In order to answer these questions, we will have to begin by thinking about the being and essence of the Church. What do we mean when we say that the Church exists? What is it; how do we know it is actually present? In other words, we need to develop an ontology of the Church, a theory of being, that is, of ecclesial being. Traditional ontology is concerned with the objects of knowledge, with reality considered in the widest, deepest, and most fundamental aspects under which it is conceived by the human mind: with the being and becoming of reality, its possibility and its actuality, its essence and its existence, its unity and plurality; with the aspects of truth, goodness, perfection, beauty, which it assumes in relation with our minds; with the contingency of finite reality and the grounds and implications both of its actual existence and of its intelligibility; with the modes of its concrete existence and behavior, the supreme categories of reality as they are called: substance, individual nature, and personality; quantity, space and time, quality and relation, causality and purpose.28

What would all of this look like if applied to the being of the Church? We could begin (a) by reflecting on ecclesial being as such and its relationship to various types of being, as well as the difference between ideal and actual or real existence. That would lead to (b) a consideration of the aspects of ecclesial being, for example, to the difference between its substance and its accidents. Next, (c) we could look into the idea of ecclesial change and becoming and the types of change that can occur. These are of 28. Coffey, Ontology.

17

Being the Church

particular importance if we are going to speak about and try to measure that change or growth. Finally, (d) we would get to what we might call the transcendental aspects of ecclesial being, characteristics similar to the four essential, persistent qualities given by the Creed, describing Church in a way that is not limited by its local expression—ecclesial unity, goodness, beauty, and integrity. This approach to ecclesial being will serve as an outline for the rest of this book. I will take up the question of ecclesial being in some detail and then examine these four transcendental aspects of the Church. This will show us what the Church is, what aspects of it can be counted, and, above all, it will present us with an ideal toward which we should strive, into which we should grow, and show us how that ideal facilitates our proclamation.

18

1 Ecclesial Being On the Nature of the Church’s Existence

Creation ex nihilo implies that God created realities, which are outside of himself, and despite the fact that there is an “infinite” distance, or rather an ontological gulf (χάσμα) between the nature of God and that of created beings. God’s intention was not one of producing beings, which would have no participation in his glory.1

Introduction: Methodological Issues

I

n most cases, church growth thinkers simply assume the presence of Church by referring to every Christian group they study as a church. They rarely reflect on the nature of the Church, which is supposed to be actualized in those organizations. They seem to simply bracket the question of whether the particular organization being analyzed is or is not a Church. In many respects, this is a perfectly understandable move. For one thing, it fits the modern, post-Enlightenment insistence on avoiding the questions of being as such and working exclusively from that which we 1. Scouteris, Ecclesial Being, 10.

19

Being the Church

find to be existent—along the lines of the famous dictum “existence precedes essence.”2 The other thing is that, at least in North America, there are so many definitions of what a church is that a great deal of time and effort would be needed to sort them out. Craig Van Gelder, in his insightful book The Essence of the Church, points out that in one setting seven distinct definitions were offered: “a building, an event, a policy body, a relational group, an institutionalized denomination, an organizational style, and the practice of affirming correct confessional criteria.”3 So it would seem easier to simply accept these definitions as if each one carried “some truth about what we understand the church to be in North America”4 and move on to the more practical work of analysis. Of course, in bracketing the issue of ecclesial being, one accepts the mistaken idea that measuring a church’s countable attributes will tell us something reliable about its essence, whether it is a Church or not. One can certainly count membership and analyze its growth or decline. But what do such numbers actually tell us? Does an increase in membership necessarily indicate the presence of Church or point to its goodness and integrity? Consider the warning of St. Gregory the Theologian: And where are those who reproach us for our poverty and are proud of their wealth? They consider great numbers of people to be a sign of the Church, and despise the small flock. They measure the Divinity and they weigh people. They place a high value on grains of sand and belittle the luminaries. They gather into their treasure-house simple stones, and disdain pearls.5

What I would like to do in this chapter is develop a theory of ecclesial being, i.e., an ontology of the Church that will serve as a framework for addressing these issues. I want to unbracket the idea of ecclesial being and ask a series of foundational questions that will provide a sure understanding of what the Church is and how it exists. In order to do that I will have to make use of not only biblical data, but also the dogmatic assertions made by the Church throughout its history. But that raises the question of just how we approach, interpret, and weight the theological statements and developments of the past. As I see it, there are two distinct ways of handling the data. 2. Rommen, Die Notwendigkeit, 59–60. 3.  Van Gelder, Essence of the Church, 14. 4. Ibid. 5. Gregory the Theologian, Homily 33: Against the Arians, as quoted by Pomazansky, “Church of Christ.”

20

Ecclesial Being

On the one hand, I can take an Enlightenment-driven individualistic approach in which I assume a certain independence from history, that is, the authority to personally interpret the historical data as I see fit, the right to criticize and even reject anything but contemporary sources, and to view any changes as perpetual progress traced forward to an uncritical acceptance of the most recent set of innovations. This is, as C. S. Lewis put it, “the curious modern assumption that all changes of belief, however brought about, are necessarily exempt from blame.”6 This approach is largely the result of the ways in which at least three Enlightenment characteristics have filtered down into contemporary thinking.7 First, there is the idea of individual freedom, in particular the freedom to use one’s own reason. Today this has taken the form of a universal right to choose what we believe according to our own reasoning and to have nothing imposed on us, that is, to divorce ourselves from the tutelage of the larger narrative of history. However, since every age makes mistakes or has blind spots, this approach exacerbates the errors of our own time and cuts us off from the process whereby ideas are “tested against the great body of Christian thought down through the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light.”8 Second, there is the critical use of reason, which has been translated into the right to criticize anything and form one’s own, almost unassailable, opinion on just about everything. Of course, none of us can escape our own blindness, and we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths, which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books.9

Third, there is the notion of the relentless evolution of thought, which supposedly improves on what has been and causes the contemporary fascination with that which is new.10 This leads to the rejection, as a matter of 6.  Lewis, “On the Reading of Old Books,” 224. 7. Rommen, “Enlightenment Antecedents and the Modern Imaginary,” 19–35. 8.  Lewis, “On the Reading of Old Books,” 218. 9. Ibid., 220. 10. “Having grown accustomed to the constant evolution of technology, the late

21

Being the Church

principle, of arguments based on past practice or antiquity. It undermines the authority of ideas rooted in the historical narrative, such as biblical and Christian tradition, and affirms instead the thought of the contemporary moment. But as C. S Lewis insists, “the only safety is to have a standard of plain, central Christianity (“mere Christianity” as Baxter called it), which puts the controversies of the moment in their proper perspective. Such a standard can be acquired only from the old books.”11 In the place of this Enlightenment-driven individualistic approach, I propose taking a non-Enlightenment integral approach to ecclesiology, a methodology in which my opinions, interpretations of, and changes to the dogmatic assertions of the Church are regulated by the community that developed them and in which acceptable progress is viewed as faithful rearticulation of the prescriptions traced back to their origins, namely, to Christ and the apostles. By non-Enlightenment thinking I am not referring to a pre-Enlightenment or premodern framework, but rather to a frame of reference that, historically speaking, has not been captured or transformed by the Enlightenment. Here I am thinking of the theological and philosophical traditions of the Eastern Church.12 Within this stream of thought the basic Enlightenment characteristics of freedom, criticism, and progress13 modern individual tends to generalize and project this movement on almost every area of life. Accordingly, the economy has to grow. Relationships, friendships and allegiances have to change and evolve. Ideas (even truths) have to be developed. Speeds have to increase. Superstitions have to be overcome. This often takes the form of an outright rejection of the past. The beliefs, values and aspirations of those who have gone on before us are thrown off simply because they are of the past. Like everything else these things have been modernized and improved upon. Those no longer on the progressive side of life’s curve are shunned and hidden away. The immanent obsolescence of just about everything leads to an idolization of the new and improved. Subsequently, any argument based on past practice or its antiquity is, as a matter of principle, going to be suspect. Ideas rooted in historical continuity, such as Christian Tradition will have no authority.” Rommen, “Enlightenment Antecedents and the Modern Imaginary,” 23–24. 11.  Lewis, “On the Reading of Old Books,” 218. 12.  There was, of course, a brief flirtation with the Enlightenment in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Russia. It is said to have begun with the Latinizing influence and institutions of the Kievan Metropolitan Peter Mogila (1633–47), and later Peter the Great and his “window into Europe”—which made Russian theology and theological institutions dependent on the West. However, during the nineteenth century there was a strong philosophical movement, the Slavophiles, who sought to rediscover their own philosophical roots and develop an alternative to Western models. One interesting example is found in Solovyov, Lectures on Divine Humanity. 13. Indicative of this anti-rationalistic stance are the words of Pavel Florensky. “The single and integral object of religious perception disintegrates in the domain of

22

Ecclesial Being

have been rejected in favor of what could be called integral reasoning.14 According to this, none of us stand as completely independent individuals but rather as participants in the cumulative thought of the Christian community, that is, in a core of theological truth dynamically developed in the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is sometimes referred to as the catholic consciousness of the Church and at other times simply as the mind of the Church.15 In keeping with this, the individual is encouraged not to criticize and remake everything past, but to find his or her place in the historical continuity of the community and adopt its consciousness. And for that reason development is not viewed as perpetual progress, but rather as the faithful preservation of the common inheritance. The task of the theologian, then, is not to innovate, but to preserve through constant rearticulation. As Pope Stephen put it, “Nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est.”16 This methodological distinction is so fundamental to this project that I will need to illustrate. A great example of the individualistic approach is found in Van Gelder’s survey of historical ecclesiologies. He reviews “five periods in which the church’s thinking about itself led to significant developments in defining the church.”17 As he would have it, each new epoch brought progress in ecclesial self-understanding, that is, definitions of the Church are always changing, yet each is considered equally valid. He starts with the early Church and correctly relates the importance of the four marks of the Church proclaimed by the Creed. But, indicative of the individualistic approach, he goes on to elevate, without any historical or theological justification, a statement about the saints in the Apostles’ Creed and places it on the same level as the four marks of the Nicene Creed. Thus rationality into a multiplicity of aspects, into separate facets, into fragments of holiness, and there is no grace in these fragments. The precious alabaster has been smashed and the holy myrrh is greedily sucked in by the dry sands of the red-hot desert.” Pillar and Ground of the Truth, 234. 14.  One of the foundational ideas of the Russian religious renaissance of the late nineteenth century was the integral man, that is, humanity conceived of as the unity of the multi-hypostatic race of human beings. See Solovyov, Lectures on Divine Humanity. 15.  This idea is based on St. Paul’s reference to the “mind” that is in Christ (Phil 2:5), a pattern of thinking that conforms to his understanding and love of the world, of the risks and the opportunities. Extended to the Church, this includes the cumulative content of dogmatic assertions developed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Bebis, Mind of the Fathers, 1–29. 16. Cyprian, Letters, 74:1.2, as cited in Afanasiev, Church of the Holy Spirit, 217. 17.  Van Gelder, Essence of the Church, 47.

23

Being the Church

he speaks of five marks.18 But he never discusses the fact that the statement of the ecumenical council was intended as an unalterable dogmatic assertion valid for all the Church at all times,19 not because it was formulated by a few hundred bishops, but because it was disseminated to, tested by, and finally accepted by the Church universal. It became part of the mind of the Church. Moreover, Van Gelder individually reinterprets the relationship between the four creedal marks and the presence of the true Church by implying that because the medieval Catholic Church authoritatively claimed for itself, as the visible expression of Church on earth, the four marks apart from the consistent expression of those characteristics,20 the Reformation was somehow justified in invalidating the traditional marks and adopting two new marks, the sacraments and the Word. The development of these new “marks” of the true but invisible Church (yet another innovation) are presented as a positive evolution of the concept of Church. But no thought is given to the validity of these changes. They are not compared with and evaluated according to the biblical and historical narrative or the catholic consciousness of the Church as expressed in the Creed. Similarly, Van Gelder goes on to the free church movement and to the North American denominational fragmentation, accurately describing but simply accepting the changes as in some sense valid contributions to our understanding of Church. In the case of North American denominationalism, he points out that the church is seen “as a voluntary organization meeting personal needs.”21 In this individualistic treatment of the historical data, it is evident that any and all development or change is accepted as positive, that is, this forward flow of history itself takes on a self-legitimating, defining role. At the end of his survey, Van Gelder states: The developments of recent decades have done much to reshape and refine our understanding of historical ecclesiologies. These developments have also moved the church in some new directions in considering more fully its participation in the mission of God 18.  “These five attributes came to be the common way of describing the church over the next centuries.” Ibid., 50. Certainly the four marks of the Creed were being used, but no documentation is offered for this claim of a fifth mark. 19.  Council of Ephesus, Canon 7. 20.  “However, a significant shift in their usage took place in the late medieval period, the twelfth to the sixteenth centuries. The attributes came increasingly to be viewed as exclusive properties which the Roman Catholic Church alone possessed by virtue of being God’s authority on earth.” Van Gelder, Essence of the Church, 52. 21. Ibid., 66.

24

Ecclesial Being

in the world. All these developments are leading the church into a clearer understanding.22

But do these developments lead to a clearer understanding of the Church? Actually I think that these changes do nothing to clarify our understanding of the Church, but rather reflect the gradual devolution and fragmentation (schism) of the Church. The Church is not a “voluntary organization” that exists in as many permutations as “personal need” can possibly devise. It is rather the one, holy, catholic, apostolic body of Christ and it exists to glorify him and not us. So, as already mentioned, I believe that the opinions of the individual observer need to be informed by the mind of the Church, its Catholic consciousness as developed under the supervision of the Holy Spirit, and not by perpetual innovation. Moreover, I believe that the primary meanings and definitions of theological and ecclesial categories are to be derived from the originators of the ideas, namely Christ and the apostles. So, if we want to know what the Church is, and if we want to allow the Church to be the Church, we will have to abandon our individualistic interpretations and make our way back, not forward, to the collective ecclesial affirmations of the Christian narrative. This approach to biblical and traditional data is illustrated by the argument of Irenaeus in his piece Against the Heretics. He argues that, unlike the members of the Church, the heretics are of recent date23 and cannot trace their ideas back to the apostles. True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitutions of the Church throughout the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor suffering curtailment in the truths which she believes; and it consists in reading the word of God without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; 22. Ibid., 72. 23.  The appeal to the age of Christian origins is evident in this quote. “From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood . . . .” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.3.

25

Being the Church

and above all, it consists in the preeminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts of God.24

In what follows, I will be applying this integral approach to the historical documents of the Church, both biblical and traditional. My desire is to locate myself in the grand flow of ecclesial development that has been guided by the Holy Spirit. Here, in submission to the mind of the Church, I hope to find a solid foundation for my understanding of the Church. A Fundamental Hierarchy of Being

Now let me get back to the primary purpose of this chapter, the development of a biblically informed ontology of the Church supported by the dogmatic assertions of the Church. To begin with, let me point out that the task of ontology can be divided into two parts, one which is wholly a priori and another which admits empirical elements. The a priori part is devoted to exploring the realm of metaphysical possibility, seeking to establish what kinds of things could exist and, more importantly, coexist to make up a single possible world. The empirically conditioned part seeks to establish, on the basis of empirical evidence and informed by our most successful scientific theories, what kinds of things do exist in this, the actual world.25

Things that could or do exist can thus be arranged in a hierarchy in which “ontological categories are individuated by the distinctive existence and/or identity conditions of their members.”26 At the highest level we have “everything whatever that does or could exist . . . categorized as an ‘entity.’”27 At the next level of categorization all entities are divisible into either universals or particulars.

24. Ibid., 4.33.8. 25. Lowe, Four-Category Ontology, 4–5. 26. Ibid., 6–7. 27. Ibid., 7.

26

Ecclesial Being

Figure 1: The Hierarchy of Being

Universals

Universals can be divided into two fundamental categories: property universals, which are borne by particular objects or which exist particularly as tropes, and substance universals, which are instantiated as particular objects. Properties are conceived of as repeatable, that is, as something that can be borne by many different particulars at different times and in different places.28 For example, the color yellow is a property-universal since it can be borne by various objects. The creedal marks of the Church are also property-universals. In a general sense, oneness, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity can be repeated and applied to multiple objects. We can, for 28. Ibid., 10.

27

Being the Church

example, speak of holy persons or apostolic foundations. But in a more restricted sense these attributes are uniquely born by only one object, i.e., the Church. Only the Church can be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic in these ways. Such properties are sometimes referred to as tropes, that is, “a property conceived as a particular, a ‘non-repeatable’ entity that cannot be borne by more than one object.”29 Another way to describe these uniquely born properties is to see them as modes of being. In the case of the Church we can say that it exists as oneness, holiness, beauty, and integrity. The other category of universals, substance-universals, is instantiated as objects. That is, an object is a particular instance of or actualization of some universal. These universals have, at times, been called ideal or pure forms.30 This understanding of being assumes that every particular entity has a corresponding ideal or universal of which it is an instance. An apple, for example, is an individual instance of an ideal form that exists in the metaphysical or spiritual realm. An individual human being is one instance of human nature, all instances of which are united in that universal. Yet each one exists as a particular entity. In Christian thought, these universals are referred to as thoughts or images in the mind of God. This idea was developed by a number of Church fathers. St. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, describes creation as the realized will of God.31 “The movement of God’s 29. Ibid. 30. Plato, Republic, 7. 31.  “Now the intelligible world was by Gregory’s day pictured as a pleroma of Platonic forms existing as ideas in the mind of God; forever since the advent of Middle Platonism in the first century BCE, the Platonic forms had been transmuted from self-subsistent entities (as Plato conceived them) to ideas in the divine mind. The classic problem with this view, going as far back as Plato himself, was to explain how these forms become instantiated in the material world. “Gregory recasts this problem in theological terms: how could God, who is immaterial, have created the material world? The answer lies in the Aristotelian distinction between the category of substance and the other categories—relation, quality, quantity, place, time, action, passion (Categories 1–9), which Gregory designates with the Stoic term ‘qualities’ (poiotetes). In themselves, qualities are ideas in the mind of God. But they can also be projected out from God; and when that happens, they become visible. Now Gregory observes that although we ordinarily speak of these immanent qualities as inhering in substances, all we really perceive are the qualities of things, not their substances. It is but a short step to the conclusion that a physical object is nothing more than the convergence of its qualities. Thus matter as such doesn’t really exist; bodies are really just ‘holograms’ formed by this convergence of qualities. Consequently, there is no problem of how an immaterial God could have created a material world, for the world isn’t material at all (Against Eunomius II [949]; Work of the Six Days [69]; Making of Man 24 [212–213]; Soul and Resurrection [124]).” Ross, “Gregory of Nyssa.”

28

Ecclesial Being

will becomes at any moment that He pleases a fact, and the intention becomes at once realized in nature; for Omnipotence does not leave the plans of its far-seeing skill in the state of unsubstantial wishes: and the actualizing of a wish is substance.”32 Saint Maximus the Confessor also speaks of the actualization of these divine images in the created world. “When he willed it, the Creator gave substance to and produced his eternally preexisting knowledge of beings.”33 That is, each created entity is preexistent as logos, i.e., word or thought in God, all of which are summarized and unified by the Logos.34 It is this preexistence in God’s thought that “safeguards their unity in Him,” and when actualized it determines their individual substance, each entity having been given its own logos, “which is God’s intention for that thing, its inner essence, that which makes it distinctively itself.”35 These logoi, subsisting eternally in the will of God, are the transcendent source of particular being. However, the Church is not rooted in just any one of the logoi, but rather the Logos himself, the second person of the Godhead, which, as we shall see, adds a whole other personal dimension to the ideal of ecclesial being and the way in which it is objectified in space and time. Particulars

Particulars can also be divided into two categories: objects, which are property bearing and which are not themselves borne by anything, and tropes, which are properties born uniquely by only one object. So the Church is a property-bearing particular, which is not borne by anything else. It is not a characteristic or property of some other object, but is itself an individual substance, that is, an actualization or realization of a substance-universal. We might appear to be ascribing “churchness” to an object when we speak of something like a church choir. But what we actually mean is a choir of a Church. In other words, Church is not a property of choir, nor is choir a property of Church. Choir is rather a separate object in some relation to a Church. So the designation describes a relationship between two particulars and says little or nothing about the nature of the being of either. Similarly, the Church, since it is not a property, cannot be a trope or a mode 32. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and the Resurrection. 33.  Maximus the Confessor, Four Hundred Texts on Love, 75. 34.  Cf. Louth, “Cosmic Vision of Saint Maximos.” 35.  Ware, “God Immanent yet Transcendent,” 160.

29

Being the Church

of being. Although some have suggested that objects are actually bundles of tropes36—for example, a flower for example existing as a combination of color, form, and smell.37 Gregory of Nyssa comes close to this idea when he states: That not one of those things which we attribute to body is itself body; neither figure, nor color, nor weight, nor extension, nor quantity, nor any other qualifying notion whatever; but every one of them is a category; it is the combination of them all into a single whole that constitutes body. .  .  . Seeing, then, that these several qualifications which complete the particular body are grasped by thought alone, and not by sense, and that the Deity is a thinking being, what trouble can it be to such a thinking agent to produce the thinkables whose mutual combinations generate for us the substance of that body?38

So an actualized universal exists as a particular, individual substance independent of its properties, that is, its being is not dependent on the properties it bears. Nevertheless, it is the combination of those properties that enable us to perceive, identify, or gain access to that concrete and particular substance. Since a Church exists as an instantiation of the preeternal Logos, its actualized substance would have to be generated for us as a combination of all the attributes of the second person of the Trinity. However, being the attributes of this divine person, they are innumerable and thus beyond human apprehension. That is no doubt the reason why the early fathers of the Church focused our attention on four primary qualifications when describing the Church. These attributes are as unique as the divine person bearing them, that is, only the Son of God could bear these attributes in the way that he does. In other words, the uniqueness extends to the divine attributes as they are borne by any actualization of his body, such as a Church. As mentioned above, this type of property is sometimes called a trope, and their function is to mediate the reality of the individual substance to us. It might be easier to conceptualize this idea if we referred to these uniquely borne properties as modes of ecclesial being. In that case we could say that a Church will exist as unity, goodness, beauty, and integrity. It is the necessity of these substance-mediating properties that also 36. Campbell, Abstract Particulars. 37. In an interesting article on quantum physics, one scientist had proposed that all of reality exists as tropes or bundles of tropes. Kuhlmann, “What Is Real?” 38. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and the Resurrection.

30

Ecclesial Being

implies that the Church as instantiated in our world will have to be a visible, concrete manifestation. There can be no such thing as an invisible Church in this world since, in the absence of visible modes of existence, it would be completely unknowable. Ecclesial Being

Given this hierarchy of being, we can conceive of Church as an entity existing both potentially in the mind and person of God and actually as an individual substance, that is, as a concrete—as opposed to abstract—object, not itself a property, but bearing properties, some uniquely. By ascribing being to the Church, we are insisting that there is such a thing as Church, that it is real, and that its existence is not determined by its properties or even the mode (trope) of its existence, but rather by the will of God. A book does not exist because it is red or because it exists as fiction. It exists, rather, as an idea in the mind of the author that is given concrete expression. Similarly, a Church does not exist because it has a certain number of members or even because it exists as holiness. It exists as an idea eternally conceived of by the mind and the person of God to which he has given concrete expression. Moreover, it is this correspondence between the particular object and the universal of which it is an instance, and not our definition or perception, that determines its substance and justifies its being named a certain thing. Thus, we see that no entity exists simply by virtue of its being named. Of course, we may call an object a book when it is in reality something entirely different, but it is still not a book. So it is possible to call something a church when it is in fact not a Church. It can only be a Church if it is truly a manifestation of the pre-eternal Logos. St. Clement captures this idea nicely. So my brothers, by doing the will of God our Father we shall belong to the first Church, the spiritual one, which was created before the sun and the moon. . . . I do not suppose that you are ignorant that the living “Church is the body of Christ.” For the Scripture says, “God made man male and female.” The male is Christ; the female is the Church. The Bible, moreover, says and the Apostles say that the Church is not limited to the present, but existed from the beginning. For it was spiritual, as was our Jesus, and was made manifest in the last days to save us. Indeed the Church, which is spiritual, was made manifest in the flesh of Christ . . . .39 39.  Lightfoot, trans., Apostolic Fathers, 68.

31

Being the Church

Affirming the Church’s being is also the most inclusive way of conceptualizing the Church, since existence itself transcends everything else that we can possibly say about the Church. Here there is nothing to count, nothing to measure. A Church’s existence is simple and undivided. Either it is a Church or it is not. If it is, then these insights should fill the Church planter with confidence. On the one hand, the existence of the Church is rooted in the mind and the person of God and is thus possible under all conditions. It is the Church under favorable conditions, as when Russian missionaries converted thousands and planted hundreds of Churches in nineteenth-century Alaska.40 It remains the Church even under the most challenging situations, such as its domination by Muslims from the fifteenth century on and by Communists in the twentieth century. History shows that the Church can exist in the harshest of environments, including that of contemporary, post-Enlightenment secularism. On the other hand, the Church’s existence does not depend on any set of measurable characteristics. It is not the Church because its growth rates are positive or negative, because giving is up or down, or even because church school participation is up or down. It is the Church for only one reason, namely, that it is an instance of the divine universal, and if that is the case, then it remains the Church even when some of its characteristics might be discouraging to us. We never need to lose heart when it comes to the Church. In saying that the Church exists, I am also saying that it is real. By real I mean something that exists as an actual state of affairs, either as a realizable potential entity or as a particularized individual substance. This is obviously true of all actualized universals, i.e., of all concretizations of divine thought such as we find in the created world—mountains, trees, animals, people. This is also true of the universals themselves. Divine thoughts are real in that they are actual states of the Divine mind and in that they can be actualized. What then of human thought? The same thing applies. The mental conception of an automobile is an actual state of human being. It is realizable and is as real as the actual implementation of those thoughts. Of course, the mind can conceive of things that cannot be realized, such as monsters, cartoon figures, or the avatars of cyberspace simulations. In this case we say that the thought is imaginary because it cannot be realized as a concrete object, as an individual substance. So the avatar is not real but imaginary. It is only a representation of thought and not an actualization, i.e., the avatar cannot exist as an actual individual substance in the world. A 40.  See Oleksa, Alaskan Missionary Spirituality.

32

Ecclesial Being

picture of a tree is, of course, a real representation, but it is not a real tree. As St. Gregory of Nyssa puts it, The name of man, for instance is not given to a portrait representing one, but to so and so who is absolutely such, the original of the picture, and not the picture itself; whereas the picture is in word only a man, and does not possess absolutely the quality ascribed to it, because it is not in its nature that which it is called.41

This means that a person can have a mental conception of something he calls a church that cannot be actualized as Church. A radical schismatic, for example, might imagine a church completely unattached, wholly independent of the Church universal. But since the Church exists as oneness rooted in the indivisible body of Christ, these imaginings are ontological impossibilities, that is, not realizable as Church. According to St. Cyprian of Carthage, The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother.42

In this realm of real entities, we can make a number of additional distinctions that will refine our understanding of just how the Church exists. Our minds are clearly able to distinguish between several types of being: infinite and finite, necessary and contingent, absolute and relative, personal and impersonal. In making these distinctions we are actually using the Trinity as a conceptual framework for the development of our ecclesiology, i.e., the Trinity provides the ontological categories for our ecclesiology.43 41. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 1.15. 42. Cyprian, Treatise 1: On the Unity of the Church, 6. 43.  This is the approach taken by George Dragas, “Orthodox Ecclesiology in Outline.” Having initiated the article by recapitulating the Orthodox teaching that the Church is both catholic and local, both invisible and visible, one and many, he states that “the Grace of the Trinity is the starting point for understanding the nature of the Church, and especially her unity in multiplicity, as the Holy Spirit shares one life and one being.” Dragas, “Orthodox Ecclesiology in Outline,” 185.

33

Being the Church

Infinite and Finite Being

To begin with, the Trinity teaches us the distinction between infinite and finite being. “By infinite being we mean a being possessing all conceivable perfections in the most perfect conceivable manner; and by finite beings all such beings as have actually any conceivable limitation to their perfection.”44 Accordingly, God exists without limitations of any kind, whereas all of creation is limited, at the very least, by space and time. What then of the Church as manifested in this world? If it is truly the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:16), the dwelling place of the Spirit (Eph 2:22), who mediates the continued presence of the ascended Christ, it must in some sense participate in the infinite being of the divine. As such the instantiated Church remains perfect and complete, that is, it cannot be improved or added to. Moreover, because it is possessed of no movement toward a particular telos, there is no becoming in her, nothing that changes, nothing to count or measure. It already is its own destiny even while instantiated within time and space. As the body of Christ, it is as complete, as stable, as fulfilled as Christ himself. Yet we know that the members of this perfect body are created, finite beings and are definitely limited by time and space. They are moving toward their ultimate destiny of godlikeness in Christ, and as such they are constantly changing and maturing. That being the case, the Church must, even while being infinite, participate in the finite being of creation. Here there is becoming and there is movement. But that becoming takes place within the context of the infinite being of the Church from which it cannot be divorced. The Church is thus a haven of infinite safety in the turbulent realm of time and space. It is a place where the faithful can work out their salvation, can progress unmolested along the path of deification. It is a place in which they can already taste and see the fulfillment toward which they grow. By participating in divinity the Church retains perfect completeness, offering its finite members a foretaste of eternity. Necessary and Contingent Being

The Trinity also demonstrates the difference between necessary and contingent being. Peter Coffey defines the two terms as follows.

44. Coffey, Ontology, 13.

34

Ecclesial Being

Necessary being we conceive as that being which exists of necessity: being which if conceived at all cannot be conceived as nonexistent: being in the very concept of which is essentially involved the concept of actual existence: so that the attempt to conceive such being as non-existent would be an attempt to conceive what would be self-contradictory. Contingent being, on the other hand, is being which is conceived not to exist of necessity: being which may be conceived as not actually existent: being in the concept of which is not involved the concept of actual existence.45

God exists necessarily, that is, we cannot conceive of him and then posit his non-existence. To do so would be self-contradictory. Human beings, however, are contingent, that is, they exist by virtue of the will of the Creator and not by any necessity. We cannot conceive of a world without God, but we can certainly conceive of a world without human being. The Church, if it is the very body of Christ, must exist necessarily. This necessity extends to its individual instantiations since they have been actualized as the dwelling place of the Spirit, that is, the place of the continued presence of ascended Christ in the world. So it would be just as difficult and contradictory to imagine a world without the incarnate Christ as it would be to imagine a post-ascension world without the Church. Even though each actualized Church is populated by contingent beings and so participates in some way in their not being necessary, it remains the necessary context within which those beings are able to acknowledge their contingency and benefit from the necessity of divinity. Those who do not exist necessarily, who do not have to exist, exist nevertheless, securely and confidently in the body of Christ. Christ, being the head of the body (Eph 5:23; Col 1:18), subjects all of its members to his life-giving authority. It is here in the context of submission that the members learn of the fullness of human being, the real potential of created existence moving toward its appointed destiny. The Church, then, is the vessel of divine necessity and at the same time the crucible of human contingency. Absolute and Relative Being

Another distinction that might help at this point is between absolute and relative being. “That, therefore, is ontologically absolute which is in some sense self-sufficing, independent of other things, in its existence; while the 45. Ibid., 13–14.

35

Being the Church

ontologically relative is that which depends in some real way for its existence on something else.”46 Obviously God is absolute and does not depend on anything else for being. Human beings, however, are relative in that they depend entirely on God for their being. If the Church is the body of Christ, then it exists as absolutely as does the second person of the Trinity, and its being does not depend on anything other than the absolute divine being. So a Church’s existence does not depend on a certain number of members, being in a certain place, or having amassed a certain amount of wealth. It exists in and of itself, absolutely. If it is truly an instance of the pre-eternal Logos, then its existence is absolute. But its members, who do depend on Christ for their personal and ecclesial being are ontologically relative. The members of the body depend on the body of Christ for their very existence. There is thus no way that a Christian can exist as a Christian outside of that body, the Church. St. Cyprian questions the schismatic interpretation of Matthew 18:20, which they used to justify their independence from the Church by asking, “How can two or three be assembled together in Christ’s name, who, it is evident, are separated from Christ and from His Gospel? For we have not withdrawn from them, but they from us; and since heresies and schisms have risen subsequently, from their establishment for themselves of diverse places of worship, they have forsaken the Head and Source of the truth.”47 The promise given here to the two or three is made to those who are in the Church, who are of one mind, living in holy simplicity. Without that, and being cut off from the life of the body, they could not continue to live as faithful believers. So in its objectified form, the Church is both absolute, being Christ’s body, and relative, its members being dependent on Christ— the body—for their very existence as members. Personal and Impersonal Being

The Trinity exists as one nature (essence) in three persons. That is, the divine essence is hypostasized48 as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This trihypostatic union is sustained by a self-giving (kenotic) love. The Father 46. Ibid., 14. 47. Cyprian, Treatise 1, 12. 48.  The usage of this term changed dramatically in the fourth century from an emphasis on substance to an emphasis on person. See Zizioulas, Communion and Otherness, 214.

36

Ecclesial Being

begets the Son, who reveals the Father, and from the Father there proceeds the Holy Spirit, who rests on the Son and facilitates the revelation of the Father through the Son. This kenotic communion is the mode of God’s existence. This inter-Trinitarian communion is the essence and the life of God, who exists eternally as three, as relationship fulfilled—simple, without motion, devoid of becoming. There is nothing toward which God is progressing, no temporality that could be measured by time. He has no spacial dimension that might be contrasted with another place. In other words, the tri-hypostatically existing God is all that there is. He is the very fullness of personal being.49 Human beings, created from the dust of the earth, become persons by the inbreathing of divine breath. Here we have the idea of God releasing something of himself, of his person, in order to create. Put differently, God replicates himself in human being. Human beings (and angels) are the only creatures that are a hypostasization of the divine will. Thus, human beings take on the personal character of the Trinity. “God is the creator of his own living images, persons according to his image in its tri-hypostatic character.”50 Personhood, then, becomes the point at which the divine and the human connect. This is particularly true of the incarnation, in which the divine nature is united with human nature within the context of one person. This mode of divine-human interaction is preserved in the Church. In her the Holy Spirit mediates the personal presence of the ascended Christ. We, its members, are personally joined to Christ through personal faith and in the sacraments. So the Church exists as the personal being of Christ. In its instantiated form it exists as a two-fronted communion. On the one hand, it is expressed in the multi-hypostatic union of members in communion with each other, united in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist (1 Cor 10:17). On the other hand, it is the communion between that integral being and the divine person united as head and body, as two natures yet one ecclesial being. The Church, then, is not an organization but rather a living, breathing organism in which its as-yet personally unfulfilled members are engulfed by the divine person and so given individual security and uniqueness, as well as an understanding of what they are to become when fully communing with Christ. Ecclesial being exists as personal communion. 49.  See Zizioulas, Being as Communion. 50. Bulgakov, Bride of the Lamb, 87.

37

Being the Church

This being, then, can be conceived of as integral being, in which the infinite, necessary, and absolute subsists with the finite, contingent, and relative as personal being. The Church is a theanthropic entity. She has a kind of composite being that is analogous to both the creation of human beings and the incarnation. The nature of ecclesial being is obviously similar to that of human beings in general, who bear the divine image even while being finite creatures. Since something of the divine has been deposited in them, they are persons of a divine-human nature. Although limited by time and space, the divine encircles them. The world’s Creator laid time and space as a background to receive what was to be; on this foundation He builds the universe. It is not possible that anything, which has come or is now coming into being by way of creation, can be independent of space or time. But the existence which is all-sufficient, everlasting, world-enveloping, is not in space, nor in time: it is before these, and above these in an ineffable way; self-contained, knowable by faith alone; immeasurable by ages; without the accompaniment of time; seated and resting in itself, with no associations of past or future, there being nothing beside and beyond itself, whose passing can make something past and something future. Such accidents are confined to the creation, whose life is divided with time’s divisions into memory and hope. But within that transcendent and blessed Power all things are equally present as in an instant: past and future are within its all-encircling grasp and its comprehensive view.51

Within the divine envelope, human beings are moving toward their appointed destiny of complete and everlasting communion with God—or at least they would be moving toward it if they were not limited by their own sinfulness. Now they are subject to death, and estranged from lifegiving communion. Yet, there is hope of renewed communion through the life, death, and resurrection of the incarnate Christ, the God-man, who perfectly united the divine and the human, overcoming death and providing redemption for those who believe. And being Christ’s own body in this present, post-ascension world, the Church too is both divine and human. It is the context for renewed communion, inhabited by the Spirit and with Christ manifested in the sacraments (1 Cor 10:16). This is the privileged site of divine-human engagement. The Church is the mystical union of the divine and the human. 51. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 26.

38

Ecclesial Being

I would like to suggest that the Church is something like two perfect disks of crystal-clear glass. On each is embossed one and the same complicated image. The one disk is fixed, unmoving, and represents the ultimate destiny of the other disk/image. The second disk is laid on top of the other, but the images are askew, misaligned. The second, finite disk is slowly rotating and eventually the images will align exactly, one fulfilled in the other. Aspects of Ecclesial Being

When dealing with the world of our experience, we can distinguish between the various modes in which we find real being expressed, determined, and actualized. This is often related to the difference between substance and accidents. Hence, in the order of our experience, the first, implicit notion of substance, is that of “something existing in itself ” (οὐσία); the first explicit notion of it, however, is that by which it is apprehended as “a subject or support of accidents” (ὑποκείμενον, sub-stare, substantia); then by reflection we go back to the explicit notion of it as “something existing in itself.” In the real or ontological order, the perfection of “existing in itself ” is manifestly more fundamental than that of “supporting accidents.” It is in accordance with a natural law of language that we name things after the properties whereby they reveal themselves to us, rather than by names implying what is more fundamental and essential in them.52

So by substance I mean a thing existing in itself, undivided in itself, and distinct from other things. Thus, I can speak of the substance of the Church, being in itself. What I call accidents are the realities that make that substance known to us. While it is difficult to account for all such realities, Coffey makes a helpful distinction between “proper accidents, or properties in the strict sense (ἴδιον, proprium), and common accidents, or accidents in the more ordinary sense (συμβεβηκός, ac-cidens).”53 According to him, a proper accident is a property “which belongs exclusively to a certain class or kind of substance, and is found always in all members of that class.”54 In the case of the Church, these would be those properties that are always present in an actualized instance of the Church, namely, the 52.  Coffey, Ontology, 147. 53. Ibid., 161. 54. Ibid.

39

Being the Church

four tropes. By contrast, a common accident has no absolutely necessary connection with its substance and “can be conceived as absent from the substance without thereby entailing the destruction of the latter’s essence, or of anything bound up by a necessity of thought with this essence.”55 So common ecclesial accidents would include things like size of membership, programs, and giving patterns, the presence, size, and change of which have no direct bearing on the substance of the Church. This brings us back to the distinction I made earlier between ordinary properties and tropes. Using Coffey’s two types, we could now say that common accidents are what I mean by ordinary properties and his proper accidents are what I am calling tropes. How, then, do these different types of accidents (properties and tropes) make the substance of an existing Church known to us? I’d like to suggest that the four proper accidents (tropes)—oneness, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity—reveal directly the essence of ecclesial substance (its mode of existence), while the common accidents indicate indirectly the presence or absence of the four proper accidents. When speaking of proper ecclesial accidents, I am making a double claim, namely, that the Church is the only entity that can actually be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, and that to be a Church an entity has to possess all four of these unique properties. I have also suggested that these tropes could reasonably be called modes of being. By that I mean that the Church does not simply bear these properties, as it might have certain size, but rather that it exists as these things. So the Church is oneness actualized, it is holiness embodied, it is catholicity instantiated, and it is apostolicity realized. As such, the tropes come very close to being universals or at least a fundamental category of being along with universals and particulars. Indeed, these four tropes and ecclesial substance are inseparable56 and for that reason they provide us with the only reliable picture of the unique substance of the actualized Church. What a Church is substantially can be read from these tropes. Unlike ordinary properties, the ecclesial tropes, being modes of existence, cannot be counted or measured since they involve the infinite, necessary, and absolute layers of a Church’s composite being. The tropes are either all present or they are not, in which case the entity cannot 55. Ibid., 161–62. 56.  Coffey also distinguishes between inseparable and separable accidents. Those that are “never found to be absent from their connatural substances—inseparable accidents. Common accidents may be such that they are sometimes present in their substances, and sometimes absent—separable accidents. These are by far the most numerous class of accidents . . . .” Ibid., 162.

40

Ecclesial Being

be a Church. So how do we know if they are present? Since we are dealing with our world of experience, we might assume that the common accidents or what I will call the ordinary accidents of the Church would give us some indication of the presence of the four proper accidents. Or, put the other way around, that the presence of the tropes might generate a whole host of corresponding common or ordinary accidents. The ordinary properties, the common accidents of the Church, are of course not unique to the Church. They are in fact repeatable and can be found in all manner of entities. Size, as in the number of members or more particularly a growing number of members, can characterize tribes, armies, sports clubs, and almost any organization. But some of these accidents rise out of the nature of the individual substance. If a Church is truly holy, it will exhibit trope-appropriate properties. So the properties do not determine the substance, but the substance does produce related properties. For example, the lack of common accidental holiness does not necessarily negate the tropic holiness, which is a function of the person of Christ. A Church is holy by virtue of its being the body of Christ and not on the basis of the holiness of its members, who are still plagued by sinfulness and are in the process of being transformed into the likeness of Christ. However, a steady increase of accidental holiness may well indicate the presence of the substance-defining trope. So, these ordinary properties, if considered in the context of all the common accidents, can first of all give us insight into the finite, contingent, and relative elements of ecclesial being. These things can be counted, measured, and analyzed, and help us understand the state of the Church’s finite being. These, in turn, can indicate something about the existential interface between the finite and the infinite. Attendance at worship, for example, might tell us how secure the finite members are in the presence of the infinite. Giving patterns might indicate the general willingness to submit to divine authority. An influx of new members could indicate the presence of human-to-human personal presence associated with a commitment to fulfilling the Great Commission. Since the presence of the tropes generates corresponding ordinary properties, these supporting accidents indicate, albeit indirectly, the presence or absence of one or more of the fundamental tropes. The presence of massive discord might well reveal that an organization does not exist as holiness, living in schism may well indicate the absence of catholicity, and the rise of heresy could mean a loss of apostolicity.

41

Being the Church

As already stated, the ordinary ecclesial accidents can certainly be counted and measured. But any analysis of these properties should be used in the context of the fundamental tropes, that is, to indicate their presence or absence. In other words, that analysis will have to establish evidence of a relationship between the common accidents and the four tropes. That is the only reasonable justification for ecclesial counting. Even if the common accidents are raised to the level of independent criteria of ecclesial being, they will only succeed in describing an organization’s finite aspects. Growth rates viewed independently of the four tropes will only tell us if the group is doing the kinds of things that any other business, be it a club or a retailer, might do in order to grow. This kind of information cannot tell us, for example, if the things we are doing to promote growth are consistent with or an indication of the fundamental substance (holiness) of a Church. It is what I am for now calling the four ecclesial tropes that will give us a reliable read on a Church’s being, and these things cannot be counted. Ecclesial Becoming and Change

The presence of accidents points to the fact that all actualized entities are in reality a combination of becoming and being, of potential and actual, in the process of change. This is no different with the Church. As already stated, the Church’s being is composite and personal. So, on the one hand, it is already fulfilled, and it already is everything it can be. On the other hand, it is actualized in time and space and thus subject to becoming or to change. Change, then, has to do with the transition of a living being from one state to another, from potential to actual.57 The living thing has the active power of causing or producing in itself these actual perfections: there is interaction between its vital parts: through one organ or faculty it acts upon another, thus educing an actuality, a new perfection, in this other, and thus developing and perfecting its own being. But even considered as active it cannot be the adequate cause of the actuality acquired through the change. If this actuality is something really over and above the reality of its active and passive potential principles, then it remains true that change implies the influence of an actual being other than the subject changed.58 57. Ibid., 24. 58. Ibid., 27.

42

Ecclesial Being

Who, then, can change the Church and what kinds of changes can we conceive of? The most obvious changes are local changes to material things and quantitative changes to numbers, size, and extent. These types of change can be expressed and analyzed numerically. They are instances of common accidents or ordinary properties, and it can be expected that they will change as the Church seeks to move its members toward their ultimate destiny in Christ. Being a living organism, these aspects of the Church will be in a state of constant flux. The changes could trend upward, as when the members give more, build a bigger church, support more missionaries, help the needy, attend more services, invite more non-believers, and so on. But the changes could also turn negative, as when a Church loses members because it has firmly stood by apostolic teaching in the face of some heretical challenge, when it is deprived of financial growth because of high rates of unemployment, or when property is lost to some form of persecution. However, whether trending up or down, these local and quantitative changes do not necessarily tell us anything about the substance of a Church. But if these changes are interpreted as reflections of the four primary tropes, they can provide insight into the ecclesial process of becoming, that is, whether or not the members are moving closer to godlikeness, simply pursuing change for its own sake, or even changing for the wrong reasons. Moreover, since the members are relative and contingent participators in the life of the Church, any changes that are in keeping with the true substance of the Church or the true telos of humanity can only be accomplished with divine help and guidance. Good planning and motivational speeches may increase the frequency of evangelistic outreach, but it is only a personal encounter with the living Christ that can transform an individual into a member of the Church. Carefully crafted fund-raising schemes might increase giving, but it is only the heart purified by the divine Spirit that can truly sacrifice. A more contemporary worship service might bring more attendees, but only the real presence of Christ can establish a worship context. Another form of change is qualitative change. It is “wider than material change, for it includes changes in spiritual beings, i.e. in beings, which are outside the category of quantity and have a mode of existence altogether different from the extensional, spatial existence, which characterizes matter.”59 Even though qualitative change is accidental, it is difficult to grasp numerically. A Church can work to bring its worship into line with biblical and traditional forms and thus improve the quality of worship. With God’s 59. Ibid., 31.

43

Being the Church

help the members of a Church can, through true worship, Bible study, and prayer, grow spiritually. By purifying themselves from the passions and replacing them with the virtues, they can mature in Christ. These kinds of changes in the finite members of a Church are actually steps along the path of deification, of becoming more godlike. But how do we measure this kind of change? Any numeric test we might think of would most likely violate the very nature of this type of change. Could you measure it by counting the hours spent in prayer and Bible study, or the amount of Scripture read during a service? Obviously not! However, this increasing quality can be captured in terms of an absence of impurities, beauty of function, increased function, integrity, and full accidental integration. So we might expect the absence of properties at odds with the four tropes, with an elegance of worship in keeping with the Scriptures, the ability to draw non-believers into the presence of Christ, as well as a harmonious integration of all the common accidents into the four fundamental marks of the Church. Finally, there is substantial change, a change to the individual substance of an actualized entity. This is not accidental change and for that reason it cannot be counted. It does raise the possibility that a real instance of the Church could be transformed into a church or a church could become a Church. This can be demonstrated in several ways. If we factor in multiplicity, either of members or groups, it is easily seen that a group that is Church can spawn another group that is not Church, and a non-church can readily hive off some of its members who become truly Church. In this case, substantial change is made possible by the manifestation of a new entity. But that doesn’t answer the question of whether or not a single group can be changed substantially and remain one or holy. Here we need to keep in mind that “substance is not a concrete core on which concrete accidents are superimposed, or a sort of kernel of which they form the rind,” nor is it “an inert substratum underlying accidents.”60 As it is manifest in the real world, the substance of an entity is richly textured and dynamic, subject to the changes introduced by the accidents that define it and that it generates. We also need to remember that substance is “a being existing in itself and supporting the accidents which affect it.”61 In other words, there is a difference between Church taken in its abstract, purely logical form and its actualization in the world of our experience. Church, logically speaking, cannot 60. Ibid., 153. 61. Ibid., 152.

44

Ecclesial Being

become something other than Church. However, as it exists in the world, Church can and does experience substantial change. This is so because of its composite nature, which is always a combination of static and potential states, e.g., being both infinite and finite. As Coffey puts it, an actualized entity “is essentially a synthesis of potential and actual principles of being, and therefore capable of substantial change,”62 movement toward or away from some potential or ideal. For this we can advance a couple of examples. A peach is possessed of the transcendental attributes of oneness, goodness, beauty, and integrity and a host of other accidents. However, with the passing of time it decays, loses some of these properties. It is no longer beautiful but appears dried up, wrinkled, even ugly. It is no longer good for eating and could actually be dangerous. But is it still a peach? Perhaps, but it has been substantially changed and at some point you would have to say that it is no longer a peach because some or all of its defining attributes have been altered or lost. A move in the opposite direction is also possible, since, unless it is completely destroyed, what is left of a peach, its seed, can be planted and produce new peaches. Human being is another example of this dynamic. This being is a composite made up of an image of the divine as well as a finite human frame. A human being has certain properties such as life, love, and reason. These attributes can be altered by sin, disease, and death, and in some cases lost entirely. Here we have the possibility of a substantial change to a human entity, that is, a move to something other than that which was intended by the Creator. If a person’s defining characteristics were lost altogether, would the individual still be a human being? Not at least as actualized by God. However, since human being is contingent upon the absolute being of God, as long as its defining characteristics exist at all, the human link (image) with the divine can never be totally lost. For that reason, in spite of the substantial damage wrought by sin and death, recapitulation is possible in Christ. Likewise, the Church as actualized in the world of our experience can undergo substantial change. Each of the four properties of oneness, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity can be undermined by the actions and beliefs of sinful members. So can its holiness be lost? Ultimately, i.e., in the logical and abstract, it can never even fade. However, in the immediate concrete realm, it can definitely vanish. In that case, losing one of its defining 62. Ibid., 33.

45

Being the Church

tropes, it no longer participates in the divine holiness of Christ, and as such is no longer a Church. Perhaps we can illustrate the implications of these changes by imagining a group, which we can hypothetically analyze. I am thinking of a group of Christians who split off from a rather large existing church. The reason for the separation was clear doctrinal deviation by the central church. This new organization experienced phenomenal growth. Their membership skyrocketed. Their giving was such that they could hire a whole staff of pastoral helpers and move through a series of successively larger buildings. Their growth continued to be so rapid that they finally had to establish a number of satellite centers, which participated in the life of the central group via large-screen video feeds. Obviously a great deal of change had taken place in this group and its leaders faithfully documented that change in regular reports on growth in membership, worship attendance, building funds, giving, and the number of and participation in small groups. Now, all of these things are common accidents and the change to them is quantitative and can thus be expressed numerically. They tell us how an entity is but are of limited use in telling us anything about its substance. Can we, for example, say on the basis of such accidents that an organization is or is not a Church? Take the question of schism. In the case of our imaginary group, the division was based on the presence of heresy in the original group and may well be justified. That is, the schism may not be of such a nature that violates the property of apostolicity. However, we must also ask if this group overcame the division and reunited itself with the Church in true ecclesial oneness. What then of the accidents of numeric growth? Do they answer the question of whether it is a Church? No! All they can tell us is that this particular group belongs to a class of entities whose number of members can change. The group in question could be a church as well as a business or a club. What of the successively larger buildings? Again, all this would tell us is that this group is an entity that belongs to the class of groups that have successfully increased the size of their base of operations. These changes could just as easily point to some kind of commercial enterprise. However, the proper accidents, the four tropes, can help answer the question of ecclesial status. Change to these properties is qualitative and does tell us something about the state of the entity’s substance. To the extent that the common accidents are indicative of the tropes, they indirectly speak to the essence of the entity. If, for example, the growth in small group Bible studies can be shown to be the result of a hunger for the word of God, 46

Ecclesial Being

we would be justified in assuming the presence of apostolicity and holiness. If the increase in membership is the result of a perceivable presence of God in the worship service to which the members had invited non-believers, we could reasonably assume the presence of catholicity and ecclesial goodness. However, if the establishment of satellite communities is a way of enhancing the egos of the leadership, then we could assume the absence of apostolicity and holiness. It seems, then, that the indirect information given by the common accidents have to be interpreted in the context of the direct information provided by the four marks of the Church. In this way change can indeed help us answer the question of ecclesial identity. Transcendental Attributes of Ecclesial Being

So far I have presented the Church as an entity existing both potentially in the mind and person of God and actually as an individual substance. I have distinguished between various types of being and concluded that an actualized Church will have a composite personal being in which the infinite, necessary, and absolute subsist with the finite, the contingent, and the relative. I have also established that in the realm of our experience its substance as Church is made known to us through its accidents. The common accidents or ordinary properties and changes to them reveal the presence or absence of the four proper accidents or tropes without which an entity cannot be a Church. Referring to ecclesial oneness, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity, Archbishop Gregory Afonsky states: These outstanding qualities of the Church may be qualified as essential qualities, insofar as they derived from, flow from, and represent the essence of the Church with which they are organically united. The Church in her essence cannot exist without these essential qualities, just as these qualities cannot exist apart from the Church.63

These unique properties provide a sure way of identifying the presence of Church since they will always be present in a Church no matter the state of the common accidents. This idea is similar to what ontologists sometimes call the transcendental aspects of being, four attributes they

63. Afonsky, Christ and the Church, 69.

47

Being the Church

claim will always be present in any real being, namely, unity, goodness, truth, and beauty.64 Taking human experience in its widest sense, as embracing all modes that are cognitive or allied with consciousness, as including intellect, memory, imagination, sense perception, will and appetite, as speculative, ethical or moral, and esthetic or artistic—we find that the reality which makes up this complex human experience of ours is universally and necessarily characterized by certain features which we call the transcendental attributes or properties of being, inasmuch as they transcend all specific and generic modes of being, pervade all its categories equally, and are inseparable from any datum of experience.65

These attributes are so closely associated with real being that they are “not really distinct from the reality which they characterize, but only logically distinct from it, being aspects under which we apprehend it . . . .”66 But they do give us “real information by making explicit some real feature of being not explicitly revealed in the concept of being itself, although involved in, and following as a property from, the latter.”67 Like tropes, these unique attributes arise out of the essence of real being, that is, they are not simply properties borne, but rather are modes of being that will be present in any being that is itself. We can readily conceive of such attributes with reference to divine being. God is always and necessarily one, beautiful, and so on. Divine being is as truth, exists as goodness. These properties pervade all aspects of divine being such that God is infinitely good, absolutely one, necessarily true, and personally beautiful. Likewise, they cannot be separated from any particular fact of our experience of God. His creation of the world is beautiful. His word in the Scriptures is true. His love for his creatures is absolute. Just as his presence in the Church is one. What then of the Church? Should we expect the transcendental attributes of unity, goodness, beauty, and truth to be present in every Church, to characterize every instance of Church independent of all change and above all common accidents? The fathers of the second ecumenical council answered in the affirmative, but used a different set of attributes, insisting 64. Not all ontologists include beauty in this set of attributes, claiming that it arises out of truth and goodness. I, however, shall treat it as a separate attribute. 65. Coffey, Ontology, 65. 66. Ibid. 67. Ibid., 66.

48

Ecclesial Being

that a Church will always and necessarily be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. While these two sets of attributes are different in intent, there is a high degree of correspondence between them. This allows us to map the ontological properties onto the creedal affirmation, enhancing the idea of four transcendental attributes of ecclesial being. In the case of unity and oneness, the correspondence between the two sets of attributes is obvious. Unity of any entity is the “concept of that whereby reality considered in itself becomes a definite object of thought.”68 In the case of the Church, this unity is conceived of in terms of Christ’s body. As such, a divided Church becomes a contradiction in terms. Oneness is the most important quality of the Church. Oneness, in fact, is of her very essence. Without it, the Church could not exist. The Church is not only numerically one. She is unique, possessing the fullness of the one head, one faith, one baptism, and one divine life of the Holy Trinity (Eph 4:4–6). Oneness is the essence of the Church, just as the Son is one with the Father (John 17:21, 23) through the Holy Spirit (1 John 4:13).69

“Goodness is the aspect under which reality is related as an object to appetitive experience, to will.”70 It is that which is desirable as an end towards which or for which a being has a natural tendency. Without the concept of a nature as tending to realize an end or purpose, the notion of the good would be inexplicable.71 In the case of the Church, goodness is expressed in its holiness, that is, its ability to sanctify by means of its union with Christ and the presence of the divine mysteries, the sacraments. Assuming that baptism and chrismation provide the initiation into the body and a point of departure for the spiritual life, we see that the Eucharist is central in maintaining the vital communion with Christ. Every time the faithful partake of the very Body and Blood of our Lord, they refresh and renew their communion with him. Because of this Holy Spirit–mediated communion with Christ, holiness is an indivisible and essential aspect of the Church. Beauty is a notoriously difficult concept to define. In general terms, beautiful things are those things that are pleasing to apprehend and contemplate. This notion of pleasing has, first of all, something to do with the completeness and perfection of the object. Second, the object would have “a 68. Ibid., 65. 69. Afonsky, Christ and the Church, 70. 70. Ibid., 65. 71. Coffey, Ontology, 108.

49

Being the Church

certain largeness or amplitude, a certain greatness or power, whereby it can act energetically on our cognitive faculties and stimulate them to vigorous action.” Thirdly, “the object would be “in itself duly proportioned, orderly, well arranged.”72 In the case of the Church, it is its catholicity or its universality that expresses its glory, its beauty. By that we mean that it is complete and perfect, magnificent and powerful geographically, doctrinally, and communally. What makes the Church beautiful and glorious is that it is universally complete and perfect. There is no place where the Church is not complete. It has no dogma that is incomplete, that is, there are no peoples to whom it is not accessible and pleasing.73 There is no place where the Church does not draw the respect, commitment, and action of its members. The reason for this is that the Church is the body of the ascended, glorified, and perfected Lord Jesus Christ. He himself glorifies the Church, giving her his own beauty, splendor, power, and harmony. Again, we are speaking of an essential, indivisible non-numeric perfection that constitutes Church. Truth is the conception of reality considered in its relation to cognitive experience, to intellect. When we speak of a true friend or a liquid truly being wine, we are not considering things absolutely, but rather in relationship to a mental image or a specific definition. So the object is true in that it conforms to this image. So how, then, do we form the mental type or the ideal by which we measure ecclesial integrity? Do we simply count, enumerate, describe, and observe the current state of the churches and posit their essence? Or do we go back to that which was passed down by Christ to the apostles and then, under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit, to all successive generations of believers? It is this body of dynamic and living tradition that informs the faithful today. The apostolic inception and continuance of the Church is an essential and indivisible basis upon which we can definitively say a group is a Church. So it is to these four transcendent attributes of ecclesial being that I now turn our attention. Taken together, these proper accidents, these tropes, give us a sure framework for distinguishing between a Church and those communities which are church in name only. This framework also provides a context in which we can meaningfully analyze the common accidents of a Church and thus discern the presence or absence of the transcendent attributes. 72. Ibid., 132. 73.  Of course, that raises the question of the widespread rejections and dislike of the Church, something I will take up below.

50

2 Ecclesial Unity On the Oneness of the Church

God is one and Christ is one, and his Church and faith are one, and the people joined together with the glue of concord into the unbroken unity of a body. It is not possible for the unity to be rent asunder, nor the one body divided by the tearing apart of the structure, nor to be torn into fragments with the violent rending apart of its vital organs. Whatever splits off from the parent tree is not able to live and breathe apart from it. It loses the essential nature of health.1

The Meaning of Oneness

W

hat do we mean when we say that something—anything—is one? Generally, oneness is the concept that allows us to consider some actual or potential reality as a unified whole, that is, as a definite object of thought2—a book, a church, a person. This is true for particulars instantiated in our world of experience and it is simply a function of their being. If something really exists it is whole, it is one. Furthermore, “when we think of anything as one we think of it as undivided in itself. The unity or oneness 1. Cyprian, Treatise 1, 23. 2. Coffey, Ontology, 65.

51

Being the Church

of being is the undividedness of being . . . .”3 So it is this prior negation of division and multiplication that formally constitutes the oneness of any real thing. Accordingly, “God was truly one from all eternity, before there was any other being, any created being, distinct from Him.”4 This transcendent oneness is common to all real being. It is, in fact, identical with being. As such, it adds nothing real to that entity and is therefore not counted. When thinking of the wholeness or oneness of some entity or its universal, we are not engaged in any form of enumeration. God is one and we do not and cannot count that oneness. Similarly, the Church preexisting in the mind of God, as well as an individual actualization of it, that is, a single Church, is one, whole, and undivided and as such defies enumeration. However, in our world of experience, we can and often do speak of one Church as opposed to two or more Churches. We readily recognize that Units, one of which is not the other, constitute multitude or plurality. Now multitude involves dividedness; but it also involves and presupposes the intrinsic undividedness or unity of each constituent of the manifold. In the real order of things, the one is prior to all dividedness. Quantitative multitude is the actually separated or divided condition of quantified being. Number is a multitude measured or counted by unity: it is a counted, and, therefore, necessarily a definite and finite multitude. It is only to realities which fall within the category of quantity—in other words, to material being—that the concept of number is properly applicable.5

So this localized oneness applies only to beings as they occur in time and space. It can be measured and it does add something real to the entity to which it is applied, namely, “the attribute of quantity, of which unity is the measure and the generating principle.”6 We derive our notion of quantitative or mathematical unity, which is the principle of counting and the standard of measuring, from dividing mentally the continuous quantity or magnitude, which is one of the immediate data of sense experience. Now the distinction between this unit and transcendental unity supposes not merely that quantity is really distinct from the corporeal substance, but 3. Ibid., 66. 4. Ibid. 5. Ibid., 69. 6. Ibid., 67.

52

Ecclesial Unity

also that the human mind is capable of conceiving as real certain modes of being other than the corporeal, modes to which quantitative concepts and processes, such as counting and measuring, are not properly applicable.7

In other words, the intersection of these various modes of oneness creates layers or levels of unity only some of which can be counted. Take as an example a particular library. It already possesses the transcendental property of oneness simply by being an instance of the universal, library. Its existence does not need to be and in fact cannot be counted. You don’t count a single library. However, as soon as we consider multiple localizations of library, we have the added attribute of quantity and we can enumerate them. A university, for example, may have a main library, a law library, a medical library, and a theological library. In other words, it has one library system made up of four separate libraries. At another level, we can also count all the books in one library and arrive at the concept of the wholeness or quantitative unity of this particular library by taking the sum of its books. While that number tells us nothing about essence, nature, or condition of this particular library or any of its books, it does add to the books the property of quantity, enabling us, for example, to measure the size of the library against other libraries that have also had their books counted. Similarly, we do not need to count a single diocese, but we can count the number of Churches in it. And we can count the members of each Church and get a sense of their wholeness. This will not tell us anything about the essence or substance of a Church, but it does add to it the attribute of quantity, allowing us to conceive of its quantitative unity, count it along with other instances, and even measure the difference between smaller and larger instances of Church. Oneness can also be either essential or accidental. Essential unity is the oneness of an entity whereby it contains everything it needs to be itself and nothing that is not needed. This unity is either simple or composite. Examples of simple essential unity are God as pure spirit, the human soul, and the pre-eternal divine image of Church. Examples of composite essential unity include an embodied human being, the previously mentioned library, and a particular instantiation of Church, i.e., a Church. If we look at the library again, we notice that it is a composite being made up of various books, shelves, catalogues, and so on. But since all of these things are necessary to it being a library, we can take all of it and speak of the essential unity 7. Ibid.

53

Being the Church

of the library. The presence of something not required for it to be a library, like a coffee shop or a restaurant, would not factor into the oneness of the library and might even mitigate or confuse that oneness. Accidental oneness is the “unity of a being whose constituent factors or contents are not really united in such a way as to form one essence, whether simple or composite.”8 This can be an aggregate of units, such as a group of attendees or a collection of books.9 So a pile of books may well have the accidental unity of aggregation, but may not necessarily form the essential unity of a library. After all, it might be just a heap of books awaiting the trash bin. Similarly, a group of people attending a worship service might well possess the accidental aggregate unity of an audience but still not form the essential unity of a Church, since a Church is not constituted by a particular number of attendees. Accidental oneness may also be a kind of artificial unity, such as a building. Take a pile of bricks and force them into unity with mortar and you have a wall or even a building. Likewise, the artificial unity created by binding people to one another by means of a shared preference, such as a particular style of contemporary worship music, is not indicative of the essential unity of a Church. Moreover, accidents can form what might be called a natural unity if they are the connatural10 accidents of some existing substance. Here we have a link between the essential and the accidental. The library quite naturally has to have books. So the sum of the books is a unity natural to the library and serves a partial indicator of its essential composite unity. So while the accidental unity of a Church might not of itself constitute essential oneness, it could serve as an indicator. The accidental unity of worshipers, even though a simple aggregate that does not necessarily constitute one essence, could point to the essential unity of a Church depending on the reason for their gathering and the nature of their participation. In other words, the countable common accidents, such as a membership unified by participation in the Eucharist (1 Cor 10:17), a growing attendance at worship truly focused on the living and present Christ, or sacrificial giving, none of which constitute the essential oneness of the Church by themselves, do give evidence of the presence of that uniquely born, essential accident oneness. So if an entity really is a Church, it will be essentially one and the unities of its ordinary accidents will point to that oneness. 8. Ibid., 68. 9. Ibid. 10. Existing at its inception.

54

Ecclesial Unity

So far, then, we see that in general oneness can be viewed in at least four ways: (1) transcendent, as a simple function of an entity actually being itself; (2) localized, giving each actualized entity a qualitative, countable unity; (3) essential, the wholeness, either simple or composite, of possessing only those things—but all of those things—that are necessary to an entity’s being; or (4) accidental, qualitative unities that may point to essential unity but do not themselves constitute that essence. Oneness Within and with God

How then does all of this apply to the Church, which “even upon earth, lives, not an earthly human life, but a life which is divine, and of grace?”11 For that reason, the ontological categories needed for understanding the unity of the Church are derived, not from the finite realm, but from the oneness of the being of the Godhead with which every Church shares its being.12 It is the presence of the one God in this composite being that lends the Church its eternal oneness, that is, the Church reflects the tri-hypostatic unity of the Godhead. It is that very unity that Jesus refers to when he prays “that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me” (John 17:21). St. Paul deliberately connects the oneness of God to the oneness of the Church. “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Eph 4:4–6). So any Christian fellowship that is truly Church will be one “in the image of the divine unity . . . there is no dissociating the mystery of unity in God from the mystery of the Trinity.”13 This eternal unity of the Church takes on an added dimension in that it is so intimately related to both the second and the third persons of the Trinity. In the incarnation Christ took on a human body and lived among us. After his ascension the Church assumes the place of the earthly body of Christ and the Holy Spirit mediates his continued presence. The faithful collectively are his body, and he is the body, which is the Church. This identification clearly implies the real unifying presence of Christ in the Church. We see the progression of this thought evident in St. Paul’s statements about 11. Khomiakov, Church Is One, 34. 12.  Dragas, “Orthodox Ecclesiology in Outline,” 188. 13. Bobrinskoy, Mystery of the Church, 124.

55

Being the Church

the body of Christ that reveal an ecclesial-divine unity that lends Church an absolute and essential oneness that is as unshakable, as indivisible as the Trinity itself. He begins by referring to the individual believer’s body as a member of Christ’s body and the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:12–20). It is an extremely intense expression (Eph 5:30–31) and implies unity (1 Cor 6:17). In 1 Corinthians 10:16–17 the image of a body is broadened to include the entire believing community and its head, Christ (1 Cor 11:29). St. Paul goes on to state that we, being many, are one body (1 Cor 10:17) in Christ (Rom 112:5). In 1 Corinthians 12:12ff this unified body is referred to as Christ himself, the members being joined to him through baptism, reconciled to God in one body (Eph 2:16). There is one body and one Spirit. “The apostle speaks precisely about one body (Eph 4:4–6) in direct relation with the unity of God.”14 It is hard to miss the ontological implications of this teaching. If a Church is one body, that is, the self-revelation and the “fullness of Him who fills all in all” (Eph 1:23), then Church, while remaining an actualizable universal, is distinct from and has a different character than all other pre-eternal images in that it is the one Son of God, united in the super-essential, indivisible Trinity, the one in whom all things, both created and uncreated, are united. As with the incarnation itself, “Christ’s divine-human existence is recreated in the mystery of the Church, in her ‘wholly sacramental’ reality. In Christ and in the Church ‘the whole fullness of the deity dwells bodily.’”15 “The Church in its nature exists on the border between the present, earthly reality and future, heavenly reality.”16 But how can this be? How can God remain utterly transcendent and yet be so intimately united with his creatures in the Church? The Scriptures do, of course, speak of God “who is near . . . and not a God afar off.” He is a God who fills both heaven and earth (Jer 23:23–24, LXX). The psalmist affirms this nearness by asking, “Where can I go from your Spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend into heaven, you are there” (Ps 139 [140]: 7–8 LXX). But in the Church we are not only speaking of proximity, but of a genuine theanthropic union, of divine-human oneness in which the eternal indivisibility of the divine unites itself with humanity. Yet, from a human perspective God remains “inexpressible, inconceivable, 14. Bulgakov, Bride of the Lamb, 258. 15. Bobrinskoy, Mystery of the Church, 16. 16.  Bishop Bezobrazov, as quoted in Afonsky, Christ and the Church, 26.

56

Ecclesial Unity

invisible, incomprehensible, ever existing, eternally the same.”17 We know that no created being can participate in God’s essence. So how, then, can we speak of the divine-human unity of the Church? What can it mean to be united with God, to become partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4)? The answer can be found in a threefold distinction18 made by St. Gregory Palamas in the fourteenth century.19 He writes: Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostases. As we have seen, those privileged to be united to God so as to become one spirit with Him—as St. Paul said, “He who cleaves to the Lord is one spirit with Him” (I Cor 6:17)— are not united to God with respect to his essence, since all the theologians testify that with respect to his essence God suffers no participation. Moreover, the hypostatic union is fulfilled only in the case of the Logos, the God-man. Thus, those privileged to attain union with God are united to Him with respect to his energy; and the ‘spirit’, according to which they cleave to God and are one with Him, is and is called the uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit, but not the essence of God . . . .20

Accordingly, there are three types of union or participation. There is the intra-Trinitarian unity according to essence that unites the three persons of the Godhead. This is what allows us to say that God is one. There is the incarnational union according to hypostasis, which unites humanity and divinity in the single person of Jesus Christ. And there is a union according to energy,21 by means of which a human being can be made one with God without losing his or her own distinctiveness. This is the way in which the theanthropic union can come into being. According to St. John of Damascus, we can speak of God being or acting in this or that place, if by that we mean those places where God’s energy becomes manifest. “For He penetrates everything without mixing with it, and imparts to all his

17.  Orthodox Church in America, Priest’s Service Book, 144. 18.  Ware, “God Immanent yet Transcendent,” 163. 19.  St. Gregory Palamas (1296–1359) developed these ideas and they were accepted as official Church teaching by councils in 1347 and 1351. 20. Gregory Palamas, Topics of Natural and Theological Science, 380. 21.  The concept of the divine energies is not very well known in the West. However, the same question of the relationship between divine transcendence and the created order has been asked and answered by distinguishing between the immanent and the economic Trinity.

57

Being the Church

energy . . . .”22 So even though we are not able to penetrate the essence of God, we are able to perceive and participate in the divine energies by the mediating work of the Holy Spirit in the Church. We see this particularly in the descent and operation of the Holy Spirit upon the eucharistic gifts, through which Spirit-mediated grace unites us to one another and to the really present Christ as his own body. That is, we the faithful collectively make up his present earthly body. If the Church is his body, then it is a composite unity made up of an essential, transcendent, indivisible oneness by virtue of the presence of the infinite in Christ, and an accidental indivisible oneness by virtue of the multi-hypostatic union of its finite members. The Church is the unity of action between the Holy Spirit and her human members. The Church in its essence, as the unity of divinehuman life, belongs to the realm of Divinity; the Church is from God. As a God-founded society, the Church exists within human history as Christ’s Kingdom within this world but not of this world (John 18:37). The life of the Church is perceived by faith as a unique life, patterned after the oneness of the life of the Holy Trinity. The Church is one as well as holy, because of the fundamental presence in her life of the Holy Trinity. She is holy, undefiled, and cannot err, since her essence is hidden in God. She unites the eternal and temporal, the uncreated and the created, in her sacraments, her hierarchy, and the Word of God. The divine, invisible life of Jesus Christ is invisibly united with His concrete humanity, thus creating a bridge between heaven and earth, uniting in the Church the eternal God with His creation. The Church is the Incarnation of our Savior Jesus Christ, existing in the world until the end of the world. The Church is the locus of the Holy Spirit, who descended on the day of Pentecost to animate the Church. Thus the Church is the revelation of the Holy Trinity within the world.23

Taken together, the Church is the theanthropic union of the oneness of an integral finite being and an infinite being. “The Church is one. Her unity follows of necessity from the unity of God; for the Church is not a multitude of persons in their separate individuality, but a unity of the grace of God, living in a multitude of rational creatures, submitting themselves willingly to grace.”24

22.  John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 1.13. 23.  Sergius Bulgakov, as quoted in Afonsky, Christ and the Church, 24–25. 24. Khomiakov, The Church Is One, 18.

58

Ecclesial Unity

Accidental Indicators of Ecclesial Oneness

What we have concluded to this point is that a Church, like any other truly existing entity, possesses a transcendent unity as a realized object of divine thought. In other words, if it really exists as a Church, it will exist as one, and that oneness will be an essential unity of only those things that truly belong to a Church as well as accidental unities that may point to its essential oneness. The plurality of Churches requires us to distinguish between the pre-eternal universal of Church; an individual actualization of that universal on earth, a Church; and the unity of all actualizations on earth, the Church. We also noted that the universal, Church, is unique in that its oneness is derived from its being identified with the tri-hypostatic unity of the Trinity. For that reason, when it is actualized in this world, an individual Church has a composite existence. It is characterized by the oneness of the infinite body of Christ and by the finite unity of its human members. In addition, because each local Church possesses the oneness of the undivided body of Christ, it is also one with all other Churches, which taken together form the mystical union of the Church universal, the body of Christ.

Figure 2: Manifestations of the Church

These conclusions also lead to what might be called a matrix of unity, with one axis being the finite/infinite, and the other being the local/ 59

Being the Church

universal. In other words, we would have four quadrants: the local infinite (1),25 the local finite (2), the universal infinite (3), and the universal finite (4). This is, of course, not a mathematical expression, but rather a kind of organizational chart. Any given local Church would be depicted as an irregular figure touching all four quadrants at some distance from the center.

Figure 3: A Matrix of Unity

As far as oneness is concerned, infinite oneness, if it is present, is, whether local or universal, a given and is pure, absolute, unchanging, and complete. The finite, on the other hand, both in its individual (local) form and its universal form, is limited by time, space, and becoming. In other words, the finite aspects of oneness are subject to change and growth. Thus finite unity is a more or less developing response to the presence of infinite unity. So in any given Christian fellowship we may find the presence of infinite oneness, which does not change and cannot be counted (quadrant 1). That is what would make it a Church and unite it with all other Churches (quadrant 3). Moreover, we will also find a variety of accidental indicators of the group’s response to infinite oneness, things that do change and can be 25.  This may sound like a contradiction in terms, except for the fact that the infinite can manifest itself in the finite by means of its divine energies.

60

Ecclesial Unity

measured (quadrant 2). St. Paul points to this movement of the Church toward unity in Christ, the whole body joined together, coming “to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph 4:13). When looking at a particular Christian fellowship, we have to ask how we can know that the infinite oneness of divinity is in fact present and to what extent the properties of the group indicate a unified response to the divine presence, both locally (quadrant 2) and universally (quadrant 4). Local Presence of Infinite Oneness (Quadrant 1)

So how can we know that the unifying presence of the infinite is being manifested locally in a given Church? As we know, all of creation exists in God, thus all of created space is in some sense sacred, occupied by God’s presence. For that reason, there is no part of the world that cannot serve as a place of worship, prayer, and Christian fellowship. However, we do learn from the Scriptures that, in addition to this general presence, there are specific manifestations of the divine person, which create special localized sacred spaces. For example, in Exodus 3:2–6 we are told that God manifested himself to Moses in the form of a burning bush. Similarly, both the tabernacle and the temple had most holy spaces (holy of holies) where God was said to meet with the priests (Exod 30:36). Notice how often God is referred to as being in the sanctuary (Ps 68:24, 73:17, 77:13, 150:1). So the temple became the focal point of God’s manifestation to the Old Testament community. Here the lamb was slain, atonement made; here the people were united in the presence of God. In the New Testament that focal point is shifted to the body of believers, who are now the temple of God, one in the unifying presence of Christ, “ in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord” (Eph 2:21). That unity in diversity is also expressed by the image of the body, in which oneness is again ascribed to the divine presence. When describing just how that unifying presence manifests itself in the body, St. Paul teaches us (1) that Christ is truly present in the elements of bread and wine, making us one body when we celebrate the Eucharist, and (2) that the Spirit unifies the body by giving it a charismatic structure of ministry.

61

Being the Church

Christ’s Unifying Presence in the Eucharist

This is expressed in St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread” (1 Cor 10:16–17). Two things are clear from this passage: Christ is present in the Eucharist and “the baptized come into being as one body at the Eucharist.”26 We know from Jesus’ own words of institution that he established the Church and promised to be present in it (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19), the eucharistic bread being his body and the eucharistic wine being his blood. So Christ is present in the Church just as he was with his disciples at the Last Supper. His post-ascension, ecclesial presence is in the elements and is mediated by the Holy Spirit beginning with Pentecost. As Afanasiev puts it, The Church, which was established by Christ at the Mystical Supper, was actualized on the day of Pentecost when the Disciples celebrated the first Eucharist. On the day of Pentecost the Disciples were filled by the Spirit and formed “into one body” (I Cor 12:13) which they became in the Eucharist, accomplished by the Spirit and through the Spirit.27

Dom Dix28 has pointed out that the celebration of the Eucharist is one of the most ancient givens of Christian worship. He goes so far as to say that the very reason the early Christians gathered at all was to celebrated communion and that all of the faithful partook of the sacrament. Given the unifying presence of Christ in the sacrament, faithful eucharistic practice could be seen as one accidental indicator of the oneness of a Church. In other words, the infinite is locally present in any group of believers that celebrates the Eucharist according to the Scriptures. This presence, being Christ himself, is the unifying presence of the tri-hypostatic unity of the Trinity. That being the case, the infinite is locally present and the celebrating group is fully Church. That is, when the people of God gather for the celebration of the Eucharist, they constitute a Church; they are the body of Christ, in the midst of which Christ is present (Luke 24:35). In the words of Afanasiev, 26. Afanasiev, Lord’s Supper, part 1, 1. 27. Afanasiev, Church of the Holy Spirit, 1. 28. Dix, Shape of the Liturgy.

62

Ecclesial Unity

Participation in the “sacrament of the assembly” is the revelation of the Church’s life and life in the Church. The Eucharist is the center towards which everything aspires and in which everything is gathered. “This is my body,” but the body is realized in the Eucharist. Where the body is, there is Christ. And the opposite: where Christ is there is his body. The Eucharistic assembly is an assembly of all into one place for one and the same act. This axiom flows out of the very nature of the Eucharist, established by Christ. Christ is inconceivable without the Church just as the Messiah is inconceivable without the messianic people. The People of God are called by God in the Body of Christ, which is the Church. This Divine assembly of the People of God is realized each time in the Eucharist.29

The oneness of the eucharistic assembly depends, of course, on everyone partaking. In the ancient church the culminating moment of the whole Eucharistic assembly was communion, which could not have been torn away to become a self-standing act. Everyone who participated at the Eucharistic assembly from the beginning was a partaker, and only those who were partakers participated in the Eucharistic assembly.30

So what would it mean if Christian groups or individuals refused to celebrate the Eucharist, either by never doing it or by transforming the sacrament into something other than the Eucharist, something merely symbolic and without divine grace? It would mean, quite simply, that they are not a Church and are not one body. Of course, things in this world are rarely that cut and dried. There are, for example, only a few Christian organizations that never celebrate the Lord’s Supper.31 However, there are many groups that neglect the sacrament by celebrating it only once a year or once every so many months. By removing it from its central place in the Church’s Sunday worship, that is, by de-emphasizing the Eucharist in favor of other things such as the sermon or music, many have for all practical purposes removed the Eucharist from the lives of the faithful. I have been told that in some cases parishioners actually skip the service on Communion Sunday because it is longer, a bother, and because they have been 29. Afanasiev, Church of the Holy Spirit, 9. 30. Afanasiev, Lord’s Supper, part 3, 61. 31.  The Salvation Army and the Quakers are among the few examples.

63

Being the Church

given the impression that it is not essential for life in Christ. Even in highly liturgical settings, where the Eucharist is central and is celebrated every Sunday, some individuals choose non-participation, saying that it is too sacred to be taken lightly, in other words, that they are unworthy of taking it every week. But, As the very term “communion” suggests, through communion they become partakers of the body and blood of Christ. The other faithful are merely present during communion. By not communing, they do not participate in the Eucharistic mystery since in the words of Metropolitan Makarii, “The Eucharist is that mystery through which the Christian partakes of the real body and blood of his Savior.” The fundamental principle of the ancient church life became atomized: “Always everyone and always together” turned into the opposite “ not everyone and not together” but each one for himself and each one separately.32

Whoever wanted to simply be an observer at the eucharistic assembly, he would be excluding himself from eucharistic communion since there could not be non-participating observers at a eucharistic assembly. There were only the faithful, the excommunicated, and the catechumens.33 Of course, these forms of disinterest could be the natural consequence of downgrading the nature of the Eucharist. If, for example, it is reduced to a simple memorial, devoid of the real presence of Christ, devoid of any spiritual nourishment, then there would be little reason to practice it regularly and one would expect no particular benefit from the service. If the celebration were just a ritualized act of remembrance, if Christ is not particularly present, if no special spiritual consequences are involved, then why would you feel the need to make the Eucharist central? But the idea of a eucharistic celebration devoid of Divine presence runs counter to the teaching of and consistent practice of the Church ever since its inception. According to St. Paul, the one thing that does guarantee Divine presence 32. Afanasiev, Lord’s Supper, part 3, 61. 33. Ibid., part 3, 65. According to ancient canon law, “All who enter the Church of God and hear the Holy Scriptures, but do not communicate with the people in prayers, or who turn away, by reason of some disorder from the holy partaking of the Eucharist, are to be cast out of the Church until, after they shall have made confession, and having brought forth the fruits of penance, and made earnest entreaty, they shall have obtained forgiveness.” Ibid., 65–66, n10. Afanasiev also says that canon law “prescribed the exclusion of those who in the course of three Sundays, do not come to the assembly” and gives his source as “Canon 21 of Elvira. This canon is noted by the council of Sardica (mid 4th century) in its 12th canon as well as Canon 80 of Trullo.” Ibid., 65, n9.

64

Ecclesial Unity

in the Church is its authentic practice of the Eucharist according to the teaching of the New Testament. That being the case, we have to concluded that any Christian group that neglects the Eucharist is divorcing itself from the one clear manifestation of the locally present infinite oneness of God, which means that it does not exist as one and that it is not a Church. The Church’s Charismatic Structure of Ministry

The other New Testament context for discussing ecclesial oneness is the Church’s charismatic structure of ministry. This is rooted in the oneness-indiversity of the gifts or ministries given to the members by the Holy Spirit. One aspect of this unity is the concept of the royal priesthood of all believers as described in 1 Peter 2:5, 9–10. You also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ . . . . But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.

In the New Testament the entire people constitutes the priesthood. That is, “all the participants of the assembly together with their presiders constituted a single people of God, the royal priesthood.”34 The gift of the Spirit that every member of the faithful receives in the sacrament of initiation [baptism] is the charism of royal priesthood. In the Church there are no gifts of the Spirit without ministry and there is no ministry without gifts. Through the charisma of the royal priesthood the Christian is called to priestly ministry in the Church.35 The priestly ministry of all members of the Church finds its expression in the Eucharistic assembly . . . . The Eucharistic assembly was an assembly of the priestly people who offered sacred service to God “in Christ.” Sacred service was an ecclesial ministry for the Eucharistic assembly itself, was a manifestation of the Church of 34. Afanasiev, Church of the Holy Spirit, 18. 35. Ibid., 3.

65

Being the Church

God in all its fullness. The Church is where Christ is, but Christ is always present in the fullness of the unity of His body in the Eucharist.36

So when the Eucharist is served, it is served not by a single individual, but by the whole assembly, by the people unified in that common ministry. Of course, there has always been the special ministry of the presider, which is made necessary by the very interactive nature of the Eucharist. From its earliest times the Church has always made provision for a presider who oversaw the orderly celebration of the Eucharist. As St. Justin Martyr describes it, And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given . . . .37

For that reason the presider must be seen as “one of those vital functions, those manifestations of life, without which the Church cannot exist on earth as a living organism.”38 However, ministry in the Church was exhausted not by the notion of the priestly ministry alone. “Another fact of life in the primitive Church was the diversity of ministries.”39 This is the other setting of divine presence and unity, the charismatic gifting by the Holy Spirit. Notice how St. Paul connects the unity of the body and the various gifts of the Spirit. For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; or 36. Ibid., 4. 37.  Justin Martyr, First Apology, 67. 38. Afanasiev, Church of the Holy Spirit, 17. 39. Ibid., 15.

66

Ecclesial Unity

ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching; he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness. (Rom 12:4–8) And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. (Eph 4:11–12)

The presence of the Holy Spirit unites the members of the body by equipping (Eph 4:12) them for ministry within and outside of the Church. We find a similar connection in 1 Corinthians 12:5–12. There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills. For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ.

So the Holy Spirit gives the charism of a particular ministry to each and every member of the body, “but to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift” (Eph 4:7). For that reason there are no non-charismatic members in a Church, no members who do not or could not minister in it.40 Again we see the unifying presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Whatever else the gifts are for, they do bring the members of the Church together as one body ministering with unity of mind and purpose, glorifying and hymning the all-honorable and magnificent name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit “with one mouth and one heart.”41 Moreover, this gifting provides for everything that is needed for ecclesial being, but adds nothing extraneous. In this way the Spirit builds yet another layer of unity, the essential unity of every Church. 40. Ibid., 16. 41.  Orthodox Church in America, Priest’s Service Book, 151.

67

Being the Church

This divine presence among the members transforms the group of individual believers into a Church. It is this that renders the Church one in the Spirit (Eph 4:3; 1 Cor 6:16–17). Local Finite Response to Infinite Oneness (Quadrant 2)

As has already been pointed out, the Church has a composite nature in which the finite subsists within the infinite. In a Church the infinite is present in the eucharistic assembly and the charismatic structure of ministry. In that presence the Church is given an ontological oneness and an essential oneness, that is, it receives everything and only that which is needed for being a Church. The finite, the Church’s members, live within that infinite presence and partake of it and are intended to grow in their response to it. That participation can be viewed in terms of the twin concepts of concelebration and coministration. Concelebration

In today’s parlance we have gotten used to referring to the presider as the celebrant, as though the priest alone served the Eucharist. Similarly, if more than one priest serves, we speak of concelebration, as if only those two or three priests were serving. This usage, however, violates the idea of the priestly function of the whole people of God. We seem to have lost sight of the fact that it is not just the priest, but also the whole people who share in the priestly function of the eucharistic assembly. Throughout the divine liturgy, the people are to collectively participate and affirm that which is being done by the presider. As Justin Martyr indicates, “the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings according to his ability and the people assent saying Amen.”42 The affirmation of the people shows that the presiders serve in the midst of the people and not apart from them.43 For that reason, consent and reception through the witness of the people affirm that the presiders act and govern in agreement with the will of God.44 This affirmation represents the active assumption of shared responsibility, which is a responsibility that is expressed as an act of the whole eucharistic 42.  Justin Martyr, First Apology, 67. 43. Afanasiev, Church of the Holy Spirit, 64. 44. Ibid., 61.

68

Ecclesial Unity

assembly. It is not just a matter of attending or observing, but deliberately participating, owning, and approving every act performed by the presider in the midst of the people. For every petition of a liturgical litany, the people all respond with the affirmation “Lord, have mercy” or “grant it O Lord.” The faithful repeatedly express their agreement with the Church’s teaching on the Trinity by making the sign of the cross at every mention of the Holy Trinity. They affirm their assent to the Creed by all singing it together. They actively share in the blessings offered by the presider, responding to his words “peace be unto all” with their own “and to thy spirit.” When asked to “bow their heads” they do so. At the beginning of the Anaphora the presider calls out to the people, “Let us stand aright, Let us stand with fear, Let us attend, that we may offer the Holy Oblation in peace,” and the people affirm that what we are about to do is indeed “A mercy of peace. A sacrifice of praise.” They are then directed to “lift up their hearts” and the people assent to that action with the words, “We lift them up to the Lord.” In other words, they are actually doing what they are being led to do. The presider follows with the call to “give thanks to the Lord” and the people proclaim that “it is meet and right to worship the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one in essence and undivided.” The people participate in elevating and offering the gifts, responding to the presider’s “Thine own of Thine own we offer unto Thee, on behalf of all and for all” by singing, “We praise Thee, We bless Thee. We give thanks unto Thee. O Lord and we pray unto Thee O our God.” And all the people approve of the consecration of the Holy Gifts with a firm “Amen.” There is then no place for observers or spectators among the faithful. They, the whole people of God, share in the priestly ministry by celebrating with the presider, concelebrating, watching, affirming, approving, and living into every move he makes, every word he utters. “Having the charism of discernment and examination the people witness that everything done in the Church under the guidance of the pastors is done in accordance with the will of God revealed by the Holy Spirit.”45 In this manner, in response to the presence of divinity, the people are unified, made to be of one mind and one purpose. The individualism that has so fragmented our society is overcome and replaced with oneness. Thus united in the presence of God, the eucharistic assembly becomes one Church.

45. Ibid.

69

Being the Church

Coministration

Ecclesial unity is also expressed through the joint exercise of the various ministries given to the Church by the Holy Spirit. We are said to be fellow workers with Christ and one another (Rom 16:3; 1 Cor 3:9; 2 Cor 1:24; Phil 4:3; Col 4:11; 3 John 1:8), all working for the building up of the body. There are at least three ways in which a Church will respond to the infinite oneness of the charismatic structure of ministries. First, they will, as a group, acknowledge that the charismatic ministries are the only structure possible in a Church, that is, the only organizing principle that can preserve ecclesial unity. I know of a church that hired itself a business manager who, while a qualified accountant, did not participate otherwise in the life of the group, being neither a member nor a believer. In what sense was he in communion with the others? How could he participate in the oneness of mind and Spirit generated by the eucharistic assembly? How could he possibly know the mind of Christ with respect to the use of their resources? Obviously he could not. In fact, his attempt to do the ministry of financial administration without the grace of an appropriate divine gifting radically undermined the potential unity of the church, since he could not possibly be of one mind and one heart with the assembly. In all likelihood, he brought with him assumptions and principles that are at cross-purposes with the mind of the Church, things like profit motive, matching clergy compensation to secular standards, building ever bigger and better buildings, financial security by saving as much as possible rather than giving it to the needy, and so on. This is not to say that a Church cannot take advantage of skills and abilities just because they are also being used outside the Church. There is a certain amount of procedural overlap at the points where the Church touches the world around it. For example, the responsible handling of Church finances involves orderly procedures that will be recognized as such by the secular institutions we have to deal with in our culture, like banks and taxing agencies. Good stewardship of the members’ contributions calls for careful accounting. However, in a Church these skills have to be exercised by someone who already participates in the priestly ministry common to the assembly and is enabled by the Spirit to own the shared needs and purposes of a finite group of believers unified in their response to the infinite presence of God in the eucharistic assembly. That is, the use of these skills will have to directly contribute to the unity of the group as Church. Since the Holy Spirit has given the Church everything

70

Ecclesial Unity

it needs to be a Church, there is no need to import insights and principles from the world of business and politics. Since the exercise of the gifts of the Spirit implies and builds the essential unity of the Church, it would be counterproductive to incorporate non-charismatic activities into its life. The Church is not a business and must not be run as one. It is not to be set up like a secular corporation with a CEO and officers. The Church is not a democracy and must not operate as one. By committing itself to a structure generated by the ministries of prophets, apostles, teachers, evangelists, and pastors (Eph 4:11), the Church thus rejected an order generated by the expertise of accountants, advertisers, and executives, and thereby preserves its character and unity. Second, the local assembly will have to develop an awareness of this basic structure and work to identify and affirm the individual gifts given to its members. Again, this does not happen by some democratic or businesslike process, but by a discernment of the clear intent of God as revealed in the Church. It is the people’s “gift of discernment and examination which is a special kind of ministry not entrusted to particular members of the Church, but rather to all the people of God, i.e., to all the members of the Church in their common action (1 Cor 14:29; 1 Thess 5:21).”46 Since the lists of gifts given in the New Testament are not complete, this process with involve more than a checklist approach. There will have to be an active and continual interrogation of the assembly with a view toward identifying divine desire and Spirit-given giftedness. For this to happen the Church would have to be instructed and motivated. This instruction could take place during sermons, Bible studies, and organizational meetings. It would teach the faithful that this kind of giftedness is not something that can be deduced from a resume. It can only be recognized as divine intent within the context of the Church. Only a person already a member of the one body of Christ, already participating in the priestly function common to all, can be so gifted. It involves those who are actively participating in the priestly ministry of the eucharistic assembly, who are then given the diverse ministries needed for the life of the Church. These ministries are an expression of divine desire and are recognized by the assembly over the course of some time in the context of the priestly ministry of all. The Church then affirms them. As Cyprian of Carthage affirms, “From the outset of

46. Ibid.

71

Being the Church

my episcopacy I have set as a rule to do nothing using my own discretion without your (presbyters) counsel and the consent of the people.”47 But it will take more than teaching and awareness for this charismatic system to work in the local Church setting. The Church will also need mechanisms for transforming recognition into practical involvement. I can envision two ways in which this can happen. On the one hand, there is ministry by intent or design. To begin with, note that “the sacramental Priesthood is a distinctive gift (charisma) of the Holy Spirit. It unifies all of the gifts (charisma) and all of the ministries (diakonia) in the Church.”48 If the presider brings together in one person the various ministries of the Church, then he will be in a position to know what ministries are needed and encourage and coordinate the recommendations of the assembly. He could, for example, present the need for more teachers and ask the assembly to identify candidates for that ministry. On the other hand, there is ministry at the direction of the Holy Spirit. We see an example of this in Acts 13:1–2, where, while the people were praying and fasting, the Holy Spirit initiates a new ministry, provides the resources needed, and identifies the ministers. In this case, the eucharistic assembly chooses one of its own members to assume the divinely revealed ministry. Third, we note that the various ministries are not intended to bolster the individual but are rather “for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Eph 4:12). So unity is achieved by overcoming individualism and personal agendas and replacing them with a unity of purpose and spirit, a oneness of mind in which all the gifted do and are allowed to exercise their particular gifts. This unity can, of course, be undermined if an individual is unwilling to overtly practice his or her ministry or if the assembly, for some reason, refuses to allow the practice of a particular ministry. Infinite Presence in the Church Universal (Quadrant 3)

Ecclesial multiplicity presupposes the local unity of each individual Church and the universal unity49 of all units taken together as one, the Church. 47.  Cyprian, as cited in ibid., 62. 48. Limouris, Otrhodox Visions of Ecumenism, 134. 49.  “The Church is called One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic; because she is one, and holy; because she belongs to the whole world, and not to any particular locality; because by her all mankind and all the earth, and not any particular nation or country,

72

Ecclesial Unity

However, this universal unity is not something imposed on the local units from the top down. It is rather generated or secured from the bottom up, i.e., by the local units themselves. The presence of the infinite is guaranteed to the local eucharistic assembly and it is one and the same presence that appears in every other eucharistic assembly. This infinite aspect of local ecclesial unity, Christ himself, remains undivided across all true instances of Church and is the body, the Church of God, which Is one and her oneness in the empirical life is manifested in the multiplicity of local churches. The principle of oneness in each local church is its Eucharistic assembly which at the same time is the empirical principle of the oneness of the Church of God, since in each local church there abides or exists, according to the Apostle, the fullness of the Church of God in Christ. On this basis, empirically, the existence of numerous local churches preserves the oneness of the Church of God in Christ while its oneness is manifested in the multiplicity of the local churches. The foundation of this principle of Eucharistic ecclesiology is the one Eucharistic assembly of the local church.50

Now, because this ecclesio-divine oneness is instantiated in the realm of our experience as a dyadic union of the eternally one Christ and an aggregate of a multitude of created beings, it may appear to be divided. That is, the finite aspects of ecclesial being will show accidental differences. It will exist in different places, at different times, have different sizes and shapes, and in particular necessarily different sets of members. But if those members are indeed faithful, they remain united in the essential unity of the local eucharistic assembly. They are joined with all other faithful local assemblies into one universal Church because they each share in one and the same divine, infinite, and indivisible presence of Christ (Eph 4: 4–6). As Khomiakov put it: The Church is one, notwithstanding her division, as it appears to man who is still alive on earth. It is only in relation to man that it is possible to recognize a division of the Church into visible and invisible; her unity is, in reality, true and absolute. Those who are alive on earth, those who have finished their earthly course, those, are sanctified; because her very essence consists in the agreement and unity of the spirit and life of all the members who acknowledge her, throughout the world; lastly, because in the writings and doctrines of the Apostles is contained all the fullness of her faith, her hope, and her love.” Khomiakov, Church Is One, 21. 50. Afanasiev, Lord’s Supper, part 1, 14.

73

Being the Church

who like the angels were not created for life on earth, those in future generations who have not yet begun their earthly course, are all united together in one Church, one and the same grace of God; for the creation of God which has not yet been manifested is manifest to Him; and God hears the prayers and knows the faith of those whom He has not yet called out of non-existence into existence. Indeed the Church, the Body of Christ, is manifesting forth and fulfilling herself in time, without changing her essential unity or inward life of grace.51

At this point it might be useful to say a bit more about the visible and invisible aspects of the Church. The visible is obviously presented in the local eucharistic assembly and its members. The invisible is given in the presence of Christ at every local Eucharist and because the divine presence manifest in each of these places is one and the same, indivisible Lord we can speak of the universal unity of the aggregate of all local Churches. “The Church visible, or upon earth, lives in complete communion and unity with the whole body of the Church, of which Christ is the Head.”52 The invisible Church would also include all those who have “finished their earthly course,” the angelic hosts, and all future generations of faithful believers. But this invisible/visible distinction could cause us some confusion since it has been used by some as a mental construct in which all “true” or “worthy” believers have been included. Take as just one example the statement in the Westminster Standards, chapter 25: The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.53

This construct seems to be motivated by two things. On the one hand, there are those New Testament passages that indicate that not every 51. Khomiakov, Church Is One, 18. 52. Ibid., 19. 53. Hendryx, “Visible vs. the Invisible Church.”

74

Ecclesial Unity

member of a church is “one of us” (1 John 2:19–20; Matt 7:2123; Rom 9:6; 2 Pet 2). It is this presence of the “not truly saved” in the midst of the church that leads to a desire to isolate the “truly saved.” Of course, this cannot actually be done. How are we to discern between the two groups? We can only do this if we refer to an invisible church realm in which no actual measure is possible and all included are by definition “true” believers. This, of course, shifts the focus of what constitutes a/the Church away from Christ’s presence to the quality of its individual members. On the other hand, this form of the invisible church is a response to the cascading schisms caused by the Reformation. Pomazansky notes that Western Protestantism, broken into a hundred sects and denominations, naturally had to come to question: where is the true church in the midst of always these divisions? And it has known no other way than to come to a teaching of an “invisible church” that mysteriously exists in the midst of all the differences and mistakes and sins of men—the church that is holy, whose membership is known only to God, and that consists only of those who were worthy of being in it.54

In order for the Church to be present on earth it has to take on the concrete, visible form of the local eucharistic assembly. The only aspect of the Church that is truly invisible and uniting is Christ himself. Finite Unity of the Church Universal (Quadrant 4)

This finite unity of the Church universal is expressed in at least three ways. First, there is a unity of belief that is centered on the dogmatic assertions of the ecumenical councils, the canons, and in particular the Creed. This is what every local eucharistic assembly believes and thus unites them all. I can go from one parish to another, any place in the world, and not have to wonder what they believe or if they believe the same things I do, since the Creed, once accepted by the universal Church, cannot and will not be changed.55 It is the teaching of the one Church, the one true faith, “that which has been believed, always and in all places.”56

54.  Pomazansky, “Is There an Invisible Church?” 55.  Council of Ephesus, Canon 7. 56.  Vincent of Lerin, Commonitorium, 9.26.

75

Being the Church

Second, there is the liturgical unity. The Church celebrates one and the same liturgy no matter the language, the culture, and the place. Usually it is the fourth-century divine liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. On special feast days and on Sundays during Lent it can be the liturgy of St. Basil, which is almost the same but has longer prayers, or on weekdays during Lent it is the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, which uses elements consecrated on the Sunday before. In any case, no matter where one might be, no matter what language is being used, the service will be familiar. I was once in a Russian Orthodox Church in Germany. The service was done in Church Slavonic, not a word of which I understood. And yet I was able to follow the service. I knew exactly what was being said and sung, and as a result was able to fully participate in the worship and the Eucharist. The universal Church is concretely unified in that it everywhere and always celebrates the same liturgy. Third, unity is expressed in a hierarchical structure that is initiated by divinity and implemented by humanity. It synergistically bridges the gap between the divine and the created order. The early fathers affirm that finite-infinite connection by equating the bishops with the presence of Christ. Ignatius of Antioch admonishes the faithful in Smyrna, “See that you all follow the bishop. . . . Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”57 And writing to the Ephesians, “For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the will of the Father; as also bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds [of the earth], are so by the will of Jesus Christ.”58 So for every new local expression of the eucharistic assembly new bishops were appointed, who in turn ordained priests to represent them in the local parishes. This structure gives the Church a living link back to that divine-human union, the incarnation itself. As a result, something of infinity resides in the structure of the Church, providing for a stability that protects from the perpetual advances of power-hungry men and is immune to the pressures of nationalism and to the social and political pressures that have, for example, caused some Christian organizations to reshape themselves in the image of prevailing political structures.59 But the succession of 57. Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8. 58. Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians, 3. 59.  This is not to say that the Church has not, at times, been greatly damaged by the power hungry and nationalism. Yet, because of its divine origin the Church has survived all such setbacks. See for example Fairbairn, Eastern Orthodoxy through Western Eyes, 143.

76

Ecclesial Unity

episcopal office established by Christ, because its origin is divine, engages the dual nature of human personhood, anchors it in the infinite, while at the same time allowing for temporal and spacial expression. Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the Bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for Bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of Bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.60

By engaging both the infinite and the finite aspects of human personhood, apostolic succession also creates a form of unity of teaching and practice that would otherwise not be possible. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian recognize this practical benefit. The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples . . . this preaching and this faith . . . as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it . . . and she proclaims them, and teaches them and hands them down, with one perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth . . . .61 Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring) . . . all are primitive and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion . . . .62

Measuring the Indicators of Ecclesial Oneness

As we have seen, oneness is a transcendental attribute of ecclesial being. That is, if a Church is really a Church, then it will exist as one. So there are no grades of being, no partial churchness or oneness. A Church is either a 60.  Clement of Rome, To the Corinthians, as cited in Wilhelm, “Apostolic Succession.” 61. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.10. 62. Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics, 20.

77

Being the Church

Church or it is not, and if it is then it will be one. For that reason, oneness as such cannot be counted. A Church is not a Church because it has a certain number of members or a particular growth rate, but simply and essentially because of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But as I also pointed out, there are accidental indicators of oneness, including the two contexts in which St. Paul discusses unity: the Eucharist and the charismatic structure of ministries. Now, while we cannot count Eucharist, we could measure its relative importance in a local group. Similarly, we cannot count the idea of ministry, but we can measure the number of scripturally based ministries that have been implemented. Moving on to oneness on the universal plane, we would not gain anything by counting the number of bishops, but we could attempt to measure their historic connectedness and we might be able to get a read on the local group’s involvement in pan-ecclesial activities. So what I propose is that we (1) look at an index of eucharistic centrality, (2) take an inventory of charismatic ministries, (3) investigate hierarchical integrity, and (4) establish the intentionality of pan-ecclesial involvement. Index of Eucharistic Centrality

If the centrality of the Eucharist is an indicator of ecclesial oneness, then we could measure that practice by conducting what we might call a sacramental inventory. This would be done on the institutional level by asking how often communion is offered. We could also measure how central the Eucharist is to the individual by counting the number of people who actually partake when it is offered. As a baseline we can take the weekly Sunday celebration of the Eucharist. The first day of the week, the day of our Lord’s resurrection, was the obvious choice for the early Christians. They gathered every week on this day in order to constitute themselves as Church in the eucharistic assembly. I am not suggesting that they were only Church on Sundays, but rather that having Eucharist every Sunday is what made them a Church and thus the one, united body of Christ. The Eucharist could be celebrated more often, such as on feast days or in monastic settings, but it is the weekly Sunday observance that is definitive. Nor am I saying that the assembly would cease to be Church if for some reason of calamity, a Sunday passed without the Eucharist. Some have suggested that having Communion less often actually increases its significance, that is, its centrality in the hearts and minds of the participants, as if celebrating it every week would lead us to take it for granted, or that waiting a month would somehow make 78

Ecclesial Unity

us more worthy of it. But what is definitive of Church is not our perception of significance or worthiness, but the basic practice established by the early Church. Departing from the ancient pattern leads to a precipitous decrease in the actual centrality of the sacrament in the life of a church. We could create a simple graph to illustrate this dynamic. Assume, for the sake of argument, that every celebration of the Eucharist by every Christian group is an equally valid expression of the true sacrament. Then we could measure the importance of Communion based simply on frequency. If done every Sunday one would have it fifty-two times a year (100 percent), if monthly twelve times a year (23 percent), if quarterly only four times (8 percent), and so on. This is only a measure of centrality and in no way means that quarterly celebration calls a Church into being four times a year. And it certainly does not mean that a congregation celebrating Eucharist quarterly is 7.69 percent Church. It simply indicates that, on a scale of 100, a quarterly observance of the Eucharist reduces its relative importance or centrality. If that were the case, this particular group should probably not call itself a Church. Assuming again for the moment the equivalidity of every occurrence of this rite, and speaking only about the frequency of the celebration, not its theological content, this kind of measurement illustrates the various kinds of change that can take place in a church. If there were some movement toward more frequent communion, we might speak of a simple qualitative change. If the move were more pronounced, we could even speak of quantitative change. However, if a group then decided on a weekly celebration, we could even speak of a substantial change, since at that point the eucharistic gathering would constitute them as a Church and not simply a church. Of course, things are not quite that simple. To be fair, we would also have to factor in the degree to which a particular group has cut itself off from the legitimate context of a canonical bishop ordaining and placing the local presider. Without that the historical continuity of the rite is lost. We would also have to consider the actual teaching on the sacrament. Some groups have so diluted the meaning of the Eucharist as to make of it something completely different, a simple remembrance, for example. In these cases, even if the “sacrament” were offered frequently, it would not indicate the ecclesial attribute of oneness, since the overall ecclesial context is destroyed and because Christ is not particularly present. We could go on to measure the importance to individual members of a group by counting the number of people who participate in the Eucharist, 79

Being the Church

that is, the percentage of overall attenders who take Communion. However, this may not be as easy as it seems since there will undoubtedly be a number of reasons for non-participation, which will have to be evaluated with discrimination. To begin with, we will (or should) always have some catechumens in the assembly. Since they are not fully integrated into the Church, they cannot yet take Communion. This of course does not exclude them from the fellowship. But others will not participate on principle, stating that the Eucharist is simply too holy and they too unworthy to participate more than, let’s say, once a year. Another reason for non-participation might be grave sin in the life of a member who has not had a chance to go to confession, rendering them unworthy of the gifts. There may also be a lack of preparation that prevents participation. In much of the Orthodox world, current practice suggests that you have regular (every six to eight weeks) confession, fast from the evening before Communion, and say the prayers of preparation. This involves significant commitment of time and effort and not everyone is always prepared. In any case, each one of these excuses represents a clear lack of spiritual vitality. The first is simply a misunderstanding or, worse, a rejection of the Church’s teaching on frequent Communion. The second is obviously a violation of the will of God or the result of a passion-filled life, the opposite of a spiritual life of virtue. The third is most likely a mode of spiritual sloth or laziness. Whatever the reason, non-participation is a breach of the unity of the local community, since those who simply observe have set themselves apart from the oneness of the group. The first time I saw the idea of counting communicants and/or noncommunicants presented was in a study of church growth in the Church of Norway. The author, who was a Lutheran priest, noticed that when Communion was offered only a very small number of attendees participated. He discovered that participation was considered an overt sign of spiritual commitment that went beyond what was considered normal for members of the church. In other words, it lowered participants’ standing in the eyes of the other attendees. This priest suggested that since growth in the state church would not come from an influx of new members, the whole population being considered members, one possible area of growth would be the percentage of attendees taking Communion. If that number could be raised, it would indicate an upswing in spiritual life and evidence of greater unity in the parish.63 63.  Standal, “Kirkevekst I den Norske Kirke,” 66–68.

80

Ecclesial Unity

In our own situation we have between 80 and 110 in attendance on Sunday mornings. We have three catechumens and, as far as I can tell, we have five members who do not participate for reasons of misdirected piety. On any given Sunday, we will also have eight to fifteen who do not partake for reasons of sin or unpreparedness, etc. So we have about 15 percent of the attendees not participating. While this seems to be a very healthy state of affairs, it does raise a couple of questions: Why can’t we get more people to prepare properly, and how can we help those who have fallen into sin? Inventory of Ministries

If participation in the charismatic structure of a local Church’s ministry is an accidental indicator of oneness, we could measure (1) the number of distinct ministries (gifts of the Spirit) present and (2) the level of participation by the faithful. First, we could catalog the various ways in which the divinely given charism is being used to facilitate the upbuilding of the local Church. Mapping the incomplete New Testament lists of ministries onto our own situation, we might, for example, settle on six major areas of ministry: presider, services, administration, education, outreach, and member care. We could then take each one of these general ministries and look for examples or subministries in our own group.

81

Being the Church

Figure 4: Ministry Inventory

Once we have that done we can plug in the number of people involved in each subministry and track that by year. That might look something like this:

82

Ecclesial Unity Ministry

Subministry

2000

2005

2010

1

1

1

Deacon

1

0

0

Subdeacon

0

2

3

Servers

2

4

7

Readers

1

4

6

Liturgist

1

1

1

Choir

8

12

21

Prosphora

1

3

2

Warden

0

1

1

Parish Council

4

5

6

Treasurer

1

1

1

Secretary

1

1

1

Maintenance

1

2

4

Cat. Class

1

1

1

Church School

0

4

4

Study Groups

1

3

2

Greeters

0

1

5

Evangelism

0

1

1

Information

1

1

3

Visitation

1

1

2

Counseling

1

1

1

Hospitality

4

10

15

0%

+15%

+25%

Presider Services

Administration

Education

Outreach

Member Care

Giving

Table 1: Ministry Participation

The exact list of subministries will vary from parish to parish depending on which gifts the Holy Spirit has bestowed and the opportunities of the particular context. This is not the place to elaborate on each one of these ministry areas. My main concern here is that there are, in fact, Spiritgiven ministries and that the faithful increasingly express their gifts as time passes. This does not mean that everything a church happens to be doing is a divinely given ministry. A yoga group, an exercise gathering, or a basketball program would hardly fit the idea of a ministry given by the Spirit 83

Being the Church

in order to equip the Church for ministry or to mediate the presence of Christ, facilitating spiritual maturity. In order to establish the ministerial nature of a given activity, we need to apply the following criteria. First, does this activity fit in with the general categories of ministry given in the New Testament? Second, are the people leading these activities active participants in the eucharistic assembly? Third, does the activity contribute to the edification of the body of Christ (Eph 4:12)? In the table above, the reader will see that each and every ministry and subministry meets these criteria. I am not suggesting that there are not other ministries that could meet these standards, but simply that we must ask that question and carefully scrutinize each and every activity. The presence of legitimate ministries in which an increasing number of the faithful participate is an indication of ecclesial oneness, just as their absence or their illegitimate substitutes undermine that unity. Integrity of Hierarchy

If a functioning hierarchy is an accidental indicator of the oneness of the Church universal, then we could measure that in terms of the state of that structure’s implementation. We could start by asking if there is a hierarch or bishop to which the group answers. If not, then we have to conclude that this group is not a Church, that its rites are not sacraments, and that its ministries are not divinely given charisms. As such, it does not have the ecclesial attribute of oneness. Some groups, of course, have bishops, but they have been separated from the succession of true canonical bishops. In these cases, the bishops are selected by the groups themselves, with no authority to do so other than that which they have given themselves. They have, in any case, separated themselves from the one true Church. This is a better situation than the absence or rejection of a hierarchy, but it still breaks the overall ecclesial context and raises the question of the legitimacy of the Eucharist, since a self-appointed bishop would have no divine authority to ordain and place a presider. This in turn undermines the validity of the Eucharist offered and calls into question this particular presence of Christ, the group’s status as Church, and thus its oneness. Finally, we could point to those groups whose presiders have been ordained by bishops standing in the continuity of the ancient succession of the apostles. In this case the status of Church is assured, the validity of the sacraments a given, and the integrity of its ministries can be accepted. That being the case, this 84

Ecclesial Unity

is a Church and is therefore one. All of this is not something that can be counted or quantified. However, we might speak of a relative distance from the ancient norm. Those with no bishops are the farthest away and those with non-canonical bishops are closer to but still short of the norm. Those with canonical bishops reflect the norm. Intentionality of Pan-Ecclesial Communion

If the unity of the Church universal can be thought of in terms of the accidents of unified belief and worship, then this could be measured in terms of pan-ecclesial participation. One would think that this universal oneness would be expressed in various joint activities. The United States is an interesting challenge to the Orthodox Church since we have a number of what we call jurisdictions that are the result of peoples from various Orthodox countries setting up ethnically based Churches when they immigrated. So in one sense the Church in North America is divided. Nevertheless, we know ourselves to be one Church and have engaged in a series of joint activities in order to emphasize that fact. One thing we do is come together for a joint Vespers service on the first Sunday of Lent. Known as the Sunday of Orthodoxy, we celebrate the victory of the Orthodox over the iconoclasts. In addition to that kind of local cooperation, all of the Churches in America have banded together to form a mission agency, OCMC, as well as a common ministry to university and college students, OCF. In addition, there is a pan-Orthodox relief agency, IOCC. There are also discussions by the Standing Committee of Bishops (SCOBA) designed to bring all of these various jurisdictions together into one Church. In any case, we are aware of our divisions and are seeking ways to come together. So one measure of a local Church’s oneness with the Church universal will be the intentionality that it brings to these kinds of endeavors.

85

3 Ecclesial Goodness On the Holiness of the Church

We come next in the order of belief to the Holy Church. . . . They, therefore, who were taught above to believe in one God, under the mystery of the Trinity, must believe this also, that there is one holy Church in which there is one faith and one baptism, in which is believed one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, and one Holy Ghost. This is that holy Church which is without spot or wrinkle.1

The Meaning of Goodness

L

ike oneness, goodness is a transcendent attribute of the Church, that is, wherever the Church truly exists, it is good; it exists as goodness. Of course, goodness is such a widely used idea that it can mean many things. At its most basic level, the good is whatever gratifies the senses or gives sensible delight. We could, for example, say that a meal is good, i.e., its taste is pleasing or it stills one’s hunger. The good, then, is something pleasure producing. However, as we develop our ideas of this concept, we recognize that the good is not merely pleasurable but, in a broader sense, is something 1. Rufinus, Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, 39.

86

Ecclesial Goodness

that satisfies a natural desire or craving. So a book is good if it satisfies the desire for intellectual challenge or stimulation. A relationship is called good because it fulfills the natural desire for love. These desires include the whole range of human experience: the sensual, the physical, the intellectual, and the spiritual.2 In the case of spirituality, “it is quite common to hear that people today experience a deep spiritual hunger.”3 In its most general sense, this hunger has something to do with the deep desire of the human being for personal integration—for a reconciliation between the unseen dimensions of reality and the everyday markers of “sacred”—a movement via selftranscendence toward the horizon of some ultimate concern.4 Anything that seems to satisfy this desire, like prayer, music, art, or nature, is thus considered good. It is a small step from this concept to the more inclusive idea of the good as that which is suitable or useful “for the satisfaction of a natural tendency or need, that which is the object of a natural tendency.”5 Here we assume that each entity has some purpose or end toward which it naturally develops. That is, each entity has a nature or essence that functions as a principle of development, “a source of all the functions and activities whereby it continually adapts itself to its environment and thereby continually fulfills the aim of its existence. By its very nature it tends towards its end along the proper line of its development.”6 In the case of conscious beings, this tendency is called appetite, either “sense appetite of what is apprehended as good by sense cognition” or “rational appetite or will in regard to what is apprehended as good by intellect or reason.”7 To this we can add a spiritual appetite that apprehends what is good using the faculties of the soul. The good then is the object of the natural appetites that grow out of the overall aim of a being’s existence.8 In the case of human beings, we have been created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26), that is, with the potential of becoming like God. Not that we could ever become like him in essence, but rather in character, i.e., we reach a union or communion with God that is so complete that it could be said of us that we are like God or that 2. Coffey, Ontology, 107. 3. Downey, Understanding Christian Spirituality, 5. 4. Ibid., 14. 5. Coffey, Ontology, 107. 6. Ibid., 108. 7. Ibid., 107. 8. Ibid., 108.

87

Being the Church

we partake of his nature (2 Pet 1:4). For this reason, Irenaeus9 and others10 “played” with language by saying that God became man in order to help us become gods. It is from that usage that we get the current terminology theosis or deification, from the Greek and Latin words for God, indicating that by a process of sanctification we become more and more like him. This is the ultimate purpose and destiny of human being, that toward which we naturally tend. Deification, then, is what we irrepressibly desire,11 what we have an appetite for. As St. Augustine put it in his Confessions, “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.”12 So anything that satisfies this appetite will be apprehended as good.13 So far we have been talking about things that are good for someone, some other being. But what about entities being good in and of themselves, objects that have an intrinsic goodness? This idea “is intelligible only in reference to an end or purpose. And we mean by it that the being we describe as good has the powers, qualities, equipment, which fit it for its end or purpose.”14 So we might speak of a good car, a good library, and a good watch, all of which have the ability to fulfill their intended purpose. “The good, then, is whatever suits the nature of a being tending towards its end.”15 Another way to put this is to say that the good perfects a being 9.  “For it was for this end that the Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God. For by no other means could we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and immortality.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.19. 10.  “He, indeed, assumed humanity that we might become god.” Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 8.54. “But He that justifieth doth Himself deify, in that by justifying He doth make sons of God. ‘For He hath given them power to become the sons of God.’ If we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods: but this is the effect of Grace adopting, not of nature generating.” Augustine, Expositions on the Book of Psalms, vol. 8, Ps 50. 11.  Wright tells the story of a dictator who covers his whole kingdom with cement in order to suppress the natural fountains of water only to have them break forth again. He calls this the “hidden spring of spirituality.” Wright, Simply Christian, 17–20. 12. Augustine, Confessions, 8. 13.  Obviously this tendency has been all but reversed by the fall into sin. The use of free will to reject human contingency on God has overlaid this natural tendency with an unnatural movement toward evil, away from God, or with an absence of good. Nevertheless, as created, in spite of evil, we have a desire for union with God. 14. Coffey, Ontology, 108. 15. Ibid., 109.

88

Ecclesial Goodness

in that it causes it to realize the end toward which it tends.16 Thus, we can say that the Church itself is good in that it already has all that it needs to be perfect and to perfect its finite members, that is, to help them realize the end, godlikeness,17 toward which they tend. Perfection is the notion of having been fully realized or completed, where there is no longer any need of becoming. Finite being is perfectible but its perfection can only take place gradually. Thus the perfect is always good, but good is not always perfect. The end itself is the good which is perfected. If it lacks this perfection, it is wanting in goodness, or is, as we shall see, ontologically “bad” or “evil”;18 what is perfect is that which is not lacking in anything that is due to its nature. The perfect is therefore not simply the good, but the completed or finished good.19 If we once again take up the destiny of human being, we can understand this perfection as deification, the ultimate fulfillment of human being in God. But we immediately see that human being in the world of our present experience is not perfect, but rather in the process of becoming. For that reason, we can speak of grades of perfection: First or essential perfection, which means its essence or nature considered as capable of realizing its purpose in existence by tending effectively towards its end; what is called its intermediate or accidental perfection, which consists in all the powers, faculties and functions whereby this tendency is gradually actualized; and what is called its final or integral perfection, which consists in its full actualization by complete attainment of its end.20

This leads us to the idea of some absolute or ultimate good, the perfection or fulfillment of all things, not just the end of one finite entity. In this case, goodness has the power to realize and perfect that which tends towards it. This power is diffused or communicated down through the hierarchy of being, making the goodness of finite beings something that is derived from the ultimate good, God. 16. Ibid., 110. 17.  This is often called the doctrine of deification. For a Western exposition of it see Keating, Deification and Grace. For an Eastern example see Nellas, Deification in Christ. 18.  “Evil [is] the privation of any perfection due to a nature, the absence of something positive and something which ought to be present . . . the failure of its adaptation to its end.” Coffey, Ontology, 119. 19. Ibid., 111. 20. Ibid.

89

Being the Church

Every creature has its own proper ultimate end and highest perfection in its being a manifestation, an expression, a showing forth, of the Divine Goodness. It has its own actuality and goodness, distinct from, but dependent on, the Divine Goodness; but inasmuch as its goodness is an expression or imitation of the Divine Goodness, we may, by an extrinsic denomination, say that the creature is good by the Divine Goodness.21

It follows, then, that every actual being has its ontological goodness. In other words, goodness “is not an attribute of the abstract, possible essence, but only of the concrete, actually existing essence.”22 If every being has a destiny toward which it is becoming, being perfected, then that end is good, and being itself, the first step in that process, is also good. So being is good for itself. The true meaning of the thesis is, not that every being is good in all respects, or possesses such goodness as would justify us in describing it as “good” in the ordinary sense, but that every being possesses some goodness: every being in so far as it has actuality has formal, intrinsic goodness, or is, in other words, the term or object of natural tendency or desire.23

Goodness and the Church

So far we have spoken of goodness with respect to the desire, natural tendency, purpose, and perfection of some entity. That gives us four basic categories of goodness to work with: (1) a delectable24 good, which satisfies some desire; (2) a useful good, which facilitates movement toward some end; (3) an intrinsic good, something capable of realizing its own purpose; and (4) an absolute or ultimate good toward which everything tends and in which everything is perfected. How can these general ideas about goodness be mapped onto the Church? In what sense is the Church good? Let’s take these four categories in reverse order.

21. Ibid., 110. 22. Ibid., 112. 23. Ibid., 115. 24. Latin deletibilis, from delectare, “to delight in.”

90

Ecclesial Goodness

Church as Absolute Goodness

If by ultimate goodness we mean that in which everything is perfected, then we can safely assert the absolute goodness of the heavenly Church because, on the one hand, it participates in the absolute goodness of God, and, on the other hand, it is the perfection of all of its members. God as Absolute Goodness

We know, of course, that God is absolute goodness (Pss 118:1, 136:1, 143:10). By that we mean: The perfect conformity of God’s will with his nature (ontological goodness), and the perfect identity of God’s will with the supreme norm, which is the divine essence (moral goodness). God is absolute ontological goodness in himself and in relation to others. In himself, he is infinitely perfect and therefore his will is perfectly and infinitely happy in loving and enjoying himself as the supreme good, the summum bonum. He needs no one and nothing outside himself for his beatitude. God is also absolute ontological goodness in relation to others. He communicates his goodness to creatures, as the exemplary, efficient, and final cause of all created things. God is absolute moral goodness or holiness. He is holy because he is exempt from all profaneness. He is the wholly Other whose will is not dependent on any creature. He is also holy because he is free from sin and, indeed, cannot commit sin. He is finally holy because his goodness is the norm of holiness for his creatures. They are as holy as they are like him.25

Note here the close connection between the concepts of goodness and holiness. If God is the perfection of all things, including morality, then we could sum that perfection up with the word holiness. This word captures all the perfections of God and it adds another dimension to our understanding of goodness. “Holiness is the first description that comes to our mind when we think of God. Holiness is the standard, the ‘what’ as love is the ‘how.’ God is holy and apart from everything that is sinful.”26 God’s mercy, benevolence, and grace are all expressions of this perfect goodness, this holiness. So the goodness of God is another of the absolute attributes of 25. Hardon, Modern Catholic Dictionary, s.v. “Goodness of God.” 26. Towns, “Attributes of God.”

91

Being the Church

God. “In a broad sense, the goodness of God includes all the positive moral attributes of God.”27 Surely that is the way in which God is presented in the Scriptures, as good and holy (Pss 25:7, 65:4, 107:8–9; Isa 6:3). Holiness, then, would also be part of the destiny of the human being. So the good and holy God moves us, his faithful ones, toward the holiness of perfected goodness, through the power of his good and life-creating Spirit, in the context of the Church. Since the Church exists as a pre-eternal universal in the mind of God, it is in and of God and thus it shares in the divine attributes of infinity, perfection, holiness, and goodness. This is an ontological goodness. So in this preeternal universal Church, which is part of God, there is no becoming, no change. It is already the completion or the perfection of what it is intended to be; it is good, holy. We also know that, by virtue of being of one essence with the Father, both the Son (Luke 18:19) and the Holy Spirit are holy and good. Speaking of the Holy Spirit, St. Basil the Great says that He is called holy, 1 John 1:20 as the Father is holy, and the Son is holy, for to the creature holiness was brought in from without, but to the Spirit holiness is the fulfillment of nature, and it is for this reason that He is described not as being sanctified, but as sanctifying. He is called good, as the Father is good, and He who was begotten of the Good is good, and to the Spirit His goodness is essence.28

Since the Church is the body of Christ and since Christ, as a member of the tri-hypostatic divine unity, shares in divine goodness, the Church naturally participates in the ultimate goodness of the Godhead. Similarly, since the Church is the dwelling place of the divine Spirit, we can again assert the Church’s absolute holiness and goodness. The Goodness of the Heavenly Assembly

In addition to this ontological goodness, there is an infinite, eternal manifestation of ecclesial perfection made up of the heavenly hosts of angels, seraphim, and cherubim who continually worship the All-Holy One. As the prophet Isaiah declared:

27. Ibid. 28.  Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 19.48.

92

Ecclesial Goodness

I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one cried to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; The whole earth is full of His glory. (Isa 6:1–3)

To this assembly are added all the faithful as they complete their earthly journeys, that great cloud of witnesses (Heb 12:1). These join the heavenly host in the eternal throne room of God and offer him worship and the prayers of all the saints. Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne set in heaven, and One sat on the throne. And He who sat there was like a jasper and a sardius stone in appearance; and there was a rainbow around the throne, in appearance like an emerald. Around the throne were twenty-four thrones, and on the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white robes; and they had crowns of gold on their heads. And from the throne proceeded lightnings, thunderings, and voices. Seven lamps of fire were burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God. Before the throne there was a sea of glass, like crystal. And in the midst of the throne, and around the throne, were four living creatures full of eyes in front and in back. The first living creature was like a lion, the second living creature like a calf, the third living creature had a face like a man, and the fourth living creature was like a flying eagle. The four living creatures, each having six wings, were full of eyes around and within. And they do not rest day or night, saying: “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, Who was and is and is to come.” (Rev 4:2–8) Then another angel, having a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar, which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, ascended before God from the angel’s hand. (Rev 8:3–4)

This heavenly assembly is the glorified body of Christ, the Church triumphant, which will worship the Holy One for all of eternity. Each member is fulfilled, perfected, and wholly sanctified in the body of he who “by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified” (Heb 10:14). It is there among the saints and the heavenly hosts that the faithful will be fully united with Christ, that is, they will be perfected or so 93

Being the Church

completely united with him that they will be like God. And what is God like? He is above all else holy, completely separated from all profanity and evil.29 And that is what human beings are to become (Lev 19:2). This idea of godlikeness is rooted in the distinction made between image and likeness in Genesis 1:26. Having been created in the image of God, the human being has the potential of becoming like God. Obviously, we cannot be like him in essence, but rather in character, i.e., reach a union or communion with God that is so complete that it could be said of us that we are like God or that we partake of his nature (2 Pet 1:4). For this reason, the fathers developed what Keating calls a formula of exchange: the Son of God became the Son of Man so that the sons of men might become the sons of God. Keating argues that this formula is clearly grounded in scriptures that point to our filial adoption in Christ through the Spirit (2 Cor 8:9; Gal 4:4–6; Rom 8:14–17, 29; 1 John 3:1–2) and that it is confirmed by the patristic interpretation of these passages. As such, it “functions both as key summation of the doctrine of salvation in the Fathers and as a shorthand statement that sums up the content of the doctrine of deification.”30 This, then, is the ultimate destiny or telos, that gradual sanctification of the believer which is fully realized by divine agency in that eternal kingdom, that heavenly Church. So, if all human being reaches perfection in God, then he is absolute goodness. And to the extent that the heavenly Church is of God, is Christ’s body, it is by extension that same ultimate good. The Church as Intrinsically Good

As this divine universal, Church, is realized in the finite world of our experience, we recognize it as the context of the deification or sanctification of the faithful. The primary reason for the Church’s existence is the facilitation 29.  “In the Old Testament the Hebrew Kadosch (holy) meant being separated from the secular or profane, or dedication to God’s service, as Israel was said to be holy because it was the people of God. The holiness of God identified his separation from all evil. And among creatures they are holy by their relation to him. Holiness in creatures is either subjective or objective or both. It is subjective essentially by the possession of divine grace and morally by the practice of virtue. Objective holiness in creatures denotes their exclusive consecration to the service of God: priests by their ordination, religious by their vows, sacred places, vessels, and vestments by the blessing they receive and the sacred purpose for which they are reserved.” Hardon, Modern Catholic Dictionary, s.v. “Holiness.” 30. Keating, Deification and Grace, 38.

94

Ecclesial Goodness

of communion with Christ and thereby the gradual sanctification of its earthly members. The absolute goodness of the heavenly Church is that “place” of perfected sanctification and holiness and is distributed down through the hierarchy of all beings tending towards it. Thus, the earthly Church is given the ability to actualize its own purpose, and for that reason we ascribe to the Church intrinsic goodness. Put simply, it has the power to gradually realize the holiness of its members. Of course, in the case of the Church, we are not talking about some general or impersonal force or energy, but rather the power of sanctification as the work of the person of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of holiness (Rom 1:4). The Church, even upon earth, lives, not an earthly human life, but a life, which is divine and of grace. Wherefore not only each of her members, but she herself as a whole solemnly calls herself “Holy.” Her visible manifestation is contained in the Sacraments; but her inward life in the gifts of the Holy Spirit, in faith, hope, and love.31

After his ascension, Christ prayed that the Father would send “another Comforter” (John 14:16). This occurred on Pentecost, and if that event is read in the context of Jesus’ words at his last discourse, it becomes apparent that what is significant here is the personal or hypostatic descent of the third person of the Trinity.32 This was necessary for the continuation of that which was accomplished in the incarnation, i.e., divine-human communion. While distinct, the incarnation and the ascension are both essential parts of the process of human becoming, its divinization.33 Thus, the incarnation and Pentecost also have the same content. The Holy Spirit reveals Christ and Christ acts in and through the Spirit, and this is now applied to all of humanity. The most concrete manifestations of the Holy Spirit’s descent occur in the Church. It is the body of Christ, by virtue of the Spirit’s presence. In the Church believers are molded into a multi-hypostatic whole through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit who is called down to sanctify the elements at the Eucharist, transforming them into the 31. Khomiakov, Church Is One, 34. 32.  We see evidence of the personal nature of this descent in the way Jesus speaks about him abiding with the disciples forever, teaching them, and reminding them of all that Christ taught them (John 14:26). The same personal character is evident in references to the Spirit’s actions, such as searching, helping, groaning in prayer (Rom 2:10; 8:26), and in the possibility that he can be grieved (Eph 4:30). 33.  Divinization is another English rendition of the term deification. It has nothing to do with the common ideas associated with the occult and power encounter. It is rather the idea that we, with the help of God, can progress towards godlikeness.

95

Being the Church

very presence of Christ. The Holy Spirit equips the Church to perfect the faithful into the fullness of Christ (Eph 4:11–14). Since the Church helps realize the end toward which its members tend, it must be considered to be intrinsically good. So The Church is the place of the Spirit’s activity. Without the Spirit there is no life in the Church, no activity, no ministry; in short there is no Church. Founded by Christ at the Last Supper, the Church was actualized at Pentecost when the glorified Lord sent the Spirit to his disciples. Beginning that day the Spirit lives in the Church and the Church lives by the Spirit.34

Some of our liturgical benedictions speak about the all-holiness and goodness of the Holy Spirit. Praising the Holy Trinity, we declare, “For thou art the enlightenment of our souls and bodies, O Christ God, and unto thee do we send up glory, together with thy Father, who is without beginning, and thine all-holy, and good, and life-creating Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages.”35 Which, since it is true, makes the place of the Spirit’s activity, the Church, good and holy. But what then of its members, those not fully perfected? Does this not undermine the holiness of the earthly Church? As mentioned above, we could say that the faithful are possessed of an essential perfection, in that their essence or nature is capable of realizing its purpose, holiness; an intermediate or accidental perfection, whereby the tendency toward holiness is gradually actualized; and can look forward to a final or integral perfection, a full actualization by complete attainment of its end. But it is the intermediate perfection that determines the visible manifestation of the Church in the world. We often see and focus on the sinfulness, the absence of good in her members. Nevertheless, The Church, even upon earth, lives, not an earthly human life, but a life, which is divine, and of grace. Wherefore not only each of her members, but she herself as a whole solemnly calls herself “Holy.” Her visible manifestation is contained in the Sacraments; but her inward life in the gifts of the Holy Spirit, in faith, hope, and love. Oppressed and persecuted by enemies without, at times agitated and lacerated within by the evil passions of her children, she has been and ever will be preserved without wavering or change

34. Afanasiev, Church of the Holy Spirit, 1–2. 35.  Orthodox Church in America, Priest’s Service Book, 124–25.

96

.

Ecclesial Goodness

wherever the Sacraments and spiritual holiness are preserved. Never is she either disfigured or in need of reformation.36

The actual manifestation of this sanctifying power can be seen in the charismatic structure of ecclesial ministries (discussed in the previous chapter) and in the sacraments. In the Orthodox Church these are officially called the “holy mysteries” and they involve the sanctification, by the Holy Spirit, of some earthly or creaturely substance (water, wine, bread) for the revelation of divine personhood. We speak of the Holy Spirit infusing water, oil, bread, and wine with Christ’s very own presence. Since this idea can be expanded to include the sanctification of other things, such as icons and water (as in Holy Water), and even the sanctification of all of creation, the number of sacraments is not doctrinally fixed. The practice of counting the sacraments was adopted in the Orthodox Church from the Roman Catholics. It is not an ancient practice of the Church and, in many ways, it tends to be misleading since it appears that there are just seven specific rites which are “sacraments” and that all other aspects of the life of the Church are essentially different from these particular actions. The more ancient and traditional practice of the Orthodox Church is to consider everything, which is in and of the Church as sacramental or mystical.37

Nevertheless, it is common to speak of seven sacraments: baptism, chrismation (or confirmation), holy Eucharist, penance, matrimony, holy orders, and the unction of the sick. What they all have in common is the power and action of the Holy Spirit for the sanctification of the earthly participants. I realize that not all of my readers will share this list of sacraments. However, I do believe that each Christian tradition has its own set of sacraments and practices that are thought to facilitate sanctification and holiness in the faithful. For the Orthodox the list is as follows. The Sacrament of Baptism

This is what incorporates us into the Church, the body of Christ, and is our introduction to new life in Christ. Going under the water is death; coming out of the water is resurrection. The triple immersion indicates the 36. Khomiakov, Church Is One, 34–35. 37. Hopko, Worship.

97

Being the Church

Trinitarian dimension of the Christian life. The life into which one is born in baptism is none other than the life of the Holy Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one in essence and undivided.38 So baptism actually affects a real transition to new life. It is a personal resurrection, a personal Easter for the one baptized. That new believer is now on a path tending toward their ultimate destiny, their deification, and the perfection of their sanctification. This rite has the power to do this not because it is performed by a certain person, or because certain formulas are recited, but because both the oil and the water used in the rite are sanctified by the descent of the Holy Spirit. The blessed oil used to anoint the candidate has long been associated with illumination and healing. The prayer used to bless the oil shows that it is not the priest but the Holy Spirit who sanctifies the oil. After thanking God for having given Noah a “token of reconciliation” in the olive branch and given us the “fruit of the olive for the fulfilling of thy Holy Mysteries,” the celebrants continue: Bless also this holy oil with the power, and operation and indwelling of Thy Holy Spirit, that it may be an anointing unto incorruption, an armor of righteousness, to the renewing of soul and body, to the averting of every assault of the devil, to the deliverance from all evil of those who shall be anointed with it in faith, or who are partakers thereof; unto thy glory and the glory of thine Onlybegotten Son, and of thine all-holy, and good, and life-creating Spirit, now, and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.39

The theme of sanctification is retained. Just before the oil is applied, the priest says, “Blessed is God, who illumines and sanctifies every man that comes into the world.”40 The water used for baptism is a natural symbol of cleansing and newness of life and represents all of creation. “The blessed water is creation restored to its original condition filled with the presence of God.”41 The candidate is immersed into this new creation and emerges himself a new creation. During the litany that precedes the blessing of the water, the priest asks That this water may be sanctified with the power and the effectual operation, and decent of the Holy Spirit. 38. Lazor, Baptism, 10–11. 39. Ibid., 54. 40.  Ibid. 41. Ibid., 10.

98

Ecclesial Goodness

That there may come upon this water the purifying operation of the super-substantial Trinity. That we may be illumined by the light of understanding and piety, and by the descent of the Holy Spirit.42

And in the middle of the long prayers of blessing the waters the priest chants these words three times: “Wherefore, O King who loves mankind, come thou now and sanctify this water by the indwelling of thy Holy Spirit.”43 The Sacrament of Chrismation (Confirmation)

This rite immediately follows baptism and is never delayed until a later age in the Orthodox Church. It involves an anointing with special aromatic oil prepared by the bishops. Since the person just baptized has been given new life in Christ, the Church now imparts the gift and the seal of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:13) in order to enable or empower the new believer to gradually trend toward deification and sanctification. As such, chrismation imparts the Spirit, and is often referred to as one’s personal Pentecost. During the prayer leading up to the anointing these words are spoken. Do thou, the same Master, compassionate King of kings, grant also unto him (her) the seal of the gift of thy holy, and almighty, and adorable Spirit, and participation in the holy Body and precious Blood of thy Christ. Keep him (her) in thy sanctification, confirm him (her), in the Orthodox faith; deliver him (her) from the Evil One, and from all his workings. And preserve his (her) soul in purity and righteousness, through the saving fear of thee; that he (she) may please thee in every deed and word, and may be a child and heir of they heavenly kingdom.44

After this prayer the newly baptized person is anointed to the words, “The seal and the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Then, after the reading of the Epistle and the Gospel, the chrism is removed using a sponge soaked in Holy Water. As the ablution takes place, we say to the person: You are justified. You are illumined, You are sanctified. You are washed: in the Name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of our God. 42.  Ibid., 45–46. 43. Ibid., 50. 44. Ibid., 58–59.

99

Being the Church

You are baptized. You are illumined. You have been Chrismated. You are sanctified. You are washed; in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.45

It is clear that these first two sacraments, this personal Easter and Pentecost, give believers new life in Christ and set them on the path of holiness, empowered by the operation of the whole Trinity and in particular the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Eucharist

This is celebrated in the context of the divine liturgy and is the central and most important worship experience of the Church. Often referred to as the “Sacrament of Sacraments,” it is the Church’s commemoration of the death and resurrection of Christ, offered every Sunday and holy day. All the other sacraments of the Church lead toward and flow from the Eucharist,46 which is at the center of the life of the Church (Heb 10:1; Matt 26:26–28; Mark 14:22–24; John 19:34; Luke 22:19–20; 1 Cor 11:23–26). What makes it so central is the idea of communion, i.e., that in it we actually have communion with Christ and with one another—the real presence of Christ.47 When the people of God gather for the celebration of the Eucharist, they become the body of Christ, in the midst of which Christ is present (Luke 24:35). When the faithful receive the consecrated bread and wine, they quite literally take Christ into themselves. Like any other food, this spiritual nourishment becomes part of the very fabric of their being. By this presence of Christ, this intimate communion, the believer is transformed, sanctified, and made holy. The power and benefits of the Eucharist are expressed in a pre-Communion prayer of St. John Chrysostom. Grant me to have communion without condemnation of Thy most pure, immortal, life-creating and awesome mysteries; for the remission of sins and unto life everlasting; for sanctification, enlightenment, strength, healing and health of soul and body; for the most perfect removal and destruction of my evil thoughts and

45. Ibid., 64. 46.  You cannot participate unless you are baptized and chrismated, unless you prepare, which often involves confession. 47. Hopko, Worship.

100

Ecclesial Goodness

reasonings and intentions, fantasies by night, brought by dark and evil spirits.48

The connection between the Eucharist and sanctification is asserted throughout the liturgy. During the Liturgy of Preparation, the priest prays: O God, our God, who didst send forth the heavenly Bread, the food of the whole world, our Lord and God Jesus Christ, Savior, Redeemer, and Benefactor, blessing and sanctifying us, do thou thyself bless this offering and receive it upon thy most heavenly altar.49

Just before the faithful take communion the priest asks Christ: Attend, O Lord Jesus Christ our God, from thy holy dwelling place and from the glorious throne of thy kingdom, and come to sanctify us, O thou that sittest with the Father above, and that art invisibly present here with us. And vouchsafe, by thy strong right hand to impart to us thine immaculate body and thy precious blood, and through us, to all thy people.50

And just before the final benediction we pray: Blessing those that bless thee, O Lord, and sanctifying those that trust in thee, save thy people and bless thine inheritance, preserve the fullness of thy Church, sanctify those that love the beauty of thy house. Glorify them in return by thy divine power, and forsake us not that hope in thee.51

Every time the faithful partake of these divine gifts, they move one step closer to the ultimate goal of deification or perfect sanctification. No wonder, then, that Basil the Great refers to the elements as “provision on the way to life eternal.”52 So we can say that the presence of Christ in the Sacrament has the power to sanctify the believer.

48.  John Chrysostom, Divine Liturgy According to St. John Chrysostom, 100. 49.  Orthodox Church in America, Priest’s Service Book, 111. 50. Ibid., 155. 51. Ibid., 165. 52. Ibid., 214.

101

Being the Church

Confession or Penance

This is the sacrament through which our sins are formally forgiven, and our relationship to God and to others is restored and strengthened. Through this sacrament, Christ our Lord continues to heal those broken in spirit and restore the Father’s love to those who are lost. The rite includes three elements. The first is a sincere sorrow for sins and for the breaking of communion with God. The second is an open and heartfelt confession of sins. At one time this confession was done publicly before all men in the midst of the Church, but in recent times it is usually done only in the presence of the pastor of the Church, who stands on behalf of all. The third element of penance is the formal prayer of absolution, through which the forgiveness of God through Christ is sacramentally bestowed upon the repentant sinner.53 At confession we do not expect to hear a “grocery list” of every possible offense committed, but rather those things that have become an actual burden to the person. Here we depend on the Holy Spirit to convict the believer of wrongdoing (John 16:8) and bring that to the surface of his consciousness. As St. Chrysostom put it, And see whom He calls. Those who have spent their strength in breaking the law, those who are burdened with their sins, those who can no longer lift up their heads, those who are filled with shame, those who can no longer speak out. And why does He call them? Not to demand an account, not to hold court. But why? To relieve them of their pain, to take away their heavy burden. For what could ever be a heavier burden than sin? . . . I shall refresh you who are weighted down by sin, He says, and you who are bent down as if under a burden; I shall grant you remission of your sins. Only come to Me.54

According to Orthodox teaching, the penitent confesses to Christ, not the priest, and is forgiven by God. The priest is the sacramental witness, who by the power of the Holy Spirit represents both Christ and his people, and is thus able to assure the sinner of God’s forgiveness. “The sacrament of penance, like all sacraments, is an element of the life of the Church which presupposes a firm belief and conviction that Christ himself is present in

53.  Cited in Hopko, Worship. 54. Coniaris, My Daily Orthodox Prayer Book, 118.

102

Ecclesial Goodness

the Church through his Holy Spirit.”55 The restoration of the penitent has a sanctifying effect by leading her back onto the paths of righteousness (Ps 23:3) and reestablishing unburdened communion with the whole community and with God. Matrimony

No one today can question the crisis facing the ancient institution of marriage. While it has never been an easy arrangement, contemporary pressures continually threaten the unity of husband and wife. For that reason, the Church teaches that the married couple needs the help and the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit in order to survive. In the sacrament of marriage, a man and a woman are given the possibility to become one spirit and one flesh in a way, which no human love can provide, by itself. In Christian marriage the Holy Spirit is given so that what is begun on earth does not “part in death” but is fulfilled and continues most perfectly in the Kingdom of God.56

Because we sinful human beings cannot do anything in holiness without Christ or without his presence and power in the Church by the Holy Spirit, “two Christians cannot begin to live together and to share each other’s life in total unity spiritually, physically, intellectually, socially, economically without first placing that unity into the eternity of the Kingdom of God through the sacrament of marriage in the Church.”57 So during the wedding service we appeal to our holy God himself to stretch out his hand from his holy dwelling place and unite the couple, that they be joined together in one mind.58 “That he will send down upon them perfect and peaceful love, and steadfast faith. That he will preserve them in oneness of mind. That he will preserve them in a blameless way of life. That he will grant them an honorable marriage and a bed undefiled.”59 In other words, we ask for divine sanctifying power to enable the couple to live in marital holiness, trending toward their appointed end, deification. 55. Hopko, Worship. 56. Ibid. 57. Ibid. 58. Meyendorff, Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, 14. 59. Ibid., 2.

103

Being the Church

Holy Orders

The ordination of a priest is another topic that has been much discussed in our day and age. Generally, the discussion centers on just what we mean by ordination in an ecumenical context, and on who can be ordained. In the Orthodox Church we see the sacrament of holy orders as a guarantee of the continual presence of Christ in the Church. Christ is present now, always, and forever in his Church. The sacramental ministry of the Church—the bishops, priests, and deacons—receives the gift of the Holy Spirit to manifest Christ in the Spirit to men. Thus, through his chosen ministers, Christ exercises and realizes his unique and exclusive function as priest, perpetually offering himself as the perfect sacrifice to the Father on behalf of his human brothers and sisters. Through his ministers in the Church, Christ also acts as teacher, himself proclaiming the divine words of the Father to men. He acts as the good shepherd, the one pastor who guides his flock. He acts as the forgiver and healer, remitting sins and curing the ills of men, physical, mental and spiritual. He acts as bishop, overseeing the community, which he has gathered for himself (1 Pet 2:25). He acts as deacon (which means servant or minister) for he alone is the suffering servant of the Father who has come “not to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28).60

So it is that the Holy Spirit preserved the continuity of the Church through the sacrament of holy orders by enabling the ordained priest to “manifest the presence and action of Christ to his people.” And there are constant reminders of this throughout the divine liturgy. During the Liturgy of Preparation the priest thanks God, “who pours out His grace upon His priests, like unto myrrh upon the head, which runneth down upon the beard, even the beard of Aaron, which runneth down to the hem of his robe.”61 Then, before the consecration of the gifts, the priest silently prays: Thou alone, O Lord our God, art Master over those in heaven and on earth, who on the throne of the Cherubim art borne, Who art Lord of the Seraphim and King of Israel, Who alone art holy and rests in the Saints. I implore thee, therefore, who alone art good and ready to listen, look down upon me a sinner and thine unprofitable servant, and purify my soul and heart from an evil 60. Hopko, Worship. 61.  Orthodox Church in America, Priest’s Service Book, 100–101.

104

Ecclesial Goodness

conscience, and, by the power of thy Holy Spirit, enable me, who am clothed with the grace of the priesthood, to stand before this thy holy table and to perform the sacred rite of thy holy, immaculate Body and precious Blood.62

Through ordination, those who have been chosen from within the Church are set apart by the Church for special service to the Church. The bishop alone, who acts in the name of the universal Church, does the service of ordination. He does so with the invocation of the Holy Spirit and the imposition of his hands on the person being ordained. O God without beginning or end, Who are before every created thing, and Who honors with the title of Presbyter those whom You deem worthy to serve the word of Your truth in the divine ministry of this order: You, the same sovereign Master, preserve in purity of life and in unswerving faith this man whom You have been pleased to ordain through me by the laying on of hands, graciously imparting to him the great grace of Your Holy Spirit, making him wholly Your servant, well-pleasing to You in all things, and worthily exercising this great honor of the Priesthood which You conferred upon him by the power of Your wisdom.63

Holy Unction

According to James 5:14–16, one who is sick is to call together the elders of the Church for a service of healing during which that person is anointed with oil. The Orthodox sacrament of anointing is a communal sacrament in which as many of the faithful as is possible participate. “The rite itself calls for seven priests, seven readings from the epistles and gospels, seven prayers and seven anointings with oil specifically blessed for the service.”64 Again, it is the presence and the operation of the Holy Spirit that lies at the root of the ceremony. This can be seen from the prayer at the blessing of the oil that is used in the service. O Lord who, in thy mercies and bounties, healest the disorders of our souls and bodies: Do thou the same Master sanctify this Oil, that it may be effectual for those who shall be anointed therewith, unto healing, and unto relief from every passion, every malady of 62. Ibid., 135. 63.  “Holy Sacrament of Ordination.” 64. Hopko, Worship.

105

Being the Church

the flesh and of the spirit, and every ill; and that therein may be glorified thy most holy Name, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.65

So the purpose of this sacrament of holy unction is healing and forgiveness. Through the anointing of the sick, the sufferings of the person are to be sanctified and united to the sufferings of Christ. In this way, the wounds of the flesh are consecrated, and strength is given that the suffering of the diseased person may not be unto the death of his soul, but for eternal salvation in the resurrection and life of the kingdom of God. By way of summary, we see that the sacraments disclose and reveal God to us. They also serve to make us receptive to God. All the sacraments affect our personal relationship to God and to one another. The Holy Spirit works through the sacraments. He leads us to Christ, who unites us with the Father. By participating in the sacraments, we grow closer to God and receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit. This process of deification, or theosis, takes place not in isolation from others, but within the context of a believing community. And because the Church provides the power to sanctify its members, it can be called good and holy. The Church as Useful Goodness

Here I am speaking of goodness as that which facilitates movement toward some end. We have already established that the end is the ultimate perfection of the believer, and we have seen that the Church has the power to accomplish that end for its children. But we also need to ask what else the Church offers by way of concrete helps. Or to put it differently, how do Christ and the Holy Spirit facilitate the movement of the faithful toward their ultimate end? God, in his infinite wisdom, has given the Church a number of practical tools that help the faithful with the process of their own sanctification. These good and perfect gifts come down from the Father of Lights (Jas 1:17–18) and include (1) the Holy Scriptures, (2) apostolic succession, (3) liturgical structures, (4) councils (dogma and canons), (5) hagiography, and (6) iconography.66 Here again, it must be seen that not all Christian traditions will share this list of gifts. Nevertheless, each one will have a set of 65. Hapgood, Service Book of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church, 340–41. 66.  This is not the place for an extended review of the various aspects of tradition. I have done that elsewhere. See Rommen, Come and See, 78–114.

106

Ecclesial Goodness

tools that it uses to facilitate holiness and sanctification. For the Orthodox these tools or gifts include the following. Holy Scriptures

The first and perhaps most obvious help is the written record of the early Church, the Holy Scriptures. We are told that the word is a “lamp unto my feet” (Ps 119:105) and a “two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit” (Heb 4:12). Obviously, then, this Holy Spirit–inspired word addressed to us can teach and instruct us in holiness (2 Tim 3:16). The Gospels contain some of the very words of our Lord. St. John gives written testimony of the things he has seen. By reading, chanting, and memorizing the words of Holy Scripture, we come to know the will and the character of God. With the help of the Holy Spirit’s illumination of our minds, we not only understand but also actualize that content in our own lives, becoming more and more like God in his holiness. This is captured in the prayer said just before the Gospel reading of the divine liturgy. Make shine in our hearts, O Master who lovest man, the incorrupt light of thy divine knowledge, and open the eyes of our mind to the comprehension of the preaching of thy Gospel. Instill in us also the fear of thy blessed commandments that, trampling down all carnal desires, we may pursue a spiritual way of life, both considering and doing all things well pleasing unto thee.67

So the Scriptures are a tool provided by the Church to, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, help its members trend toward their appointed destiny, deification, by gradually sanctifying them. Apostolic Succession

Another aid for the faithful is apostolic succession. This involves the ongoing line of bishops, who are the successors of the apostles. Confirming the New Testament pattern (Eph 2:20; 2 Tim 2:2), Clement of Alexandria states that “after the Resurrection the Lord gave the tradition of knowledge to James the Just, and John, and Peter, and these gave the tradition to the other apostles, and the other apostles to the Seventy . . . .”68 In the bishops we have 67.  Orthodox Church in America, Priest’s Service Book, 124. 68. Eusebius, Church History.

107

Being the Church

the continuation of Christ’s presence in the Church, that is, a sanctifying presence. As quoted above, Ignatius of Antioch admonishes the faithful in Smyrna to “follow the lead of the Bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Where the Bishop appears, let the people be, just as where Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”69 And writing to the Ephesians, “Surely, Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, for his part is the mind of the Father, just as the Bishops, though appointed throughout the vast, wide earth, represent for their part the mind of Christ.”70 One way to illustrate this sanctifying power is to note that the role of the bishops was not primarily administrative, but rather to preserve apostolic teaching. This is already seen in the New Testament with St. Paul telling Timothy that the things he had heard should be passed on to faithful men who would be able to teach others as well (2 Tim 2:2). Note that this passage refers to three generations of apostolic succession—Paul’s, Timothy’s, and those that Timothy would teach. So the bishop, with the help of the Holy Spirit, maintains Identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of Bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s Bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed “an infallible charism of truth.”71

We see then that the continuity achieved by the succession of bishops is another way in which the Holy Spirit preserves not only the presence of Christ in the Church but also the teachings passed down to us through the Holy Scriptures. Once again we see the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit as he uses the bishops to bring us closer to our ultimate destiny, deification. Liturgical Structures

The Church’s gift of liturgical structures also comes to our aid. This officium divinum is a life-encompassing pattern, a sacred rhythm, a finely textured hierarchy that is superimposed on the flat chaos of secular time, effectively 69. Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8. 70. Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians, 3. 71. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 37.

108

Ecclesial Goodness

sanctifying all of time. The various offices do not solely define this structure, but it is defined by the totality of the way in which they are set into a liturgy of time, what has been called the Ordo.72 This liturgy of time is tied to three great cycles: the daily, weekly, and yearly. The daily cycle is made up of five services or offices: Vespers, Compline, Nocturnes, Matins, and the Hours (1st, 3rd, 6th, 9th, and the inter-hours). The weekly cycle does not have its own offices, except for the Sunday celebration of the Eucharist, but inserts hymnographic material into the daily offices according to the day of the week using one of the eight liturgical tones or melodies.73 Nativity dominates the yearly cycle with its weeks of Advent, Easter with its preparatory weeks of Lent, and Pentecost. Other feasts such as Theophany are interspersed throughout the year, giving it its basic pattern and predictable order. In this way every phase of life is included in the rhythm of sacred time.74 So every aspect, every season of our lives, is sanctified by the presence of the Holy Spirit in the services of the Church. Church Councils

Another gift of tradition is the church council. These gatherings of the Church were often precipitated by some crisis or challenge to the integrity of the Church’s teaching. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, their findings take the form of dogmatic statements (designed to articulate teaching), creeds, and canons (laws intended to regulate practical affairs of the Church). These councils and canons amount to instructions in holiness, telling us how we should behave in the world and in the Church. As such, they have a distinctly sanctifying effect on the faithful. Communion of the Saints

Additional benefit is derived from the spiritual continuity provided by the Church’s teaching on the communion of the saints, that is, by its hagiography. 72. Schmemann, Introduction to Liturgical Theology, 41–45. 73.  The daily themes are as follows: Saturday, All Saints; Sunday, Christ’s Resurrection; Monday, Bodiless Powers (Angels, Archangels); Tuesday, Prophets (esp. St. John Forerunner); Wednesday, Cross (Judas’s Betrayal); Thursday, Holy Apostles & Hierarchs (esp. St. Nicholas); Friday, Cross & Crucifixion. 74.  This included the great cycle of birth and death (and everything in between), for which the Church has liturgical acts and prayers. See The Great Book of Needs.

109

Being the Church

In this case, we have literally thousands of examples, a great cloud of witnesses to follow. Those before us who achieved high states of holiness inspire and encourage us to strive toward the same levels of sanctification. Reading the accounts of their lives helps us define the nature of holiness as it is lived out in this world of our experience. And we are assured that the same Holy Spirit that animated them can and will empower us. Thus our daily commemoration of the saints will, with the help of the Holy Spirit, enervate our own gradual movement toward the perfection of holiness. During the liturgy of St. Basil there is a litany toward the end of the service that begins with the words, “Having remembered all the Saints, again and again in peace, let us pray to the Lord.” While the deacon and people sing the litany, the priest prays, “Do thou, O our God, who acceptest these Gifts, purify us from every pollution of the flesh and spirit, and teach us to perfect holiness in thy fear . . . .”75 The obvious connection between the commemoration of the saints and being perfected in holiness supports my contention that the saints are a valuable ecclesial asset in our movement toward ultimate sanctification. Icons

One of the most well known gifts of Eastern Church tradition is the icon. The chief characteristic of an icon is its holiness. It is holy because it is unassailable by human sinfulness and because it has become the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. As such, icons cannot be used for any purpose other than the one prescribed by God himself. Just as the bread and wine of the Eucharist and the water and oil of baptism, once imbued with the Holy Spirit, cannot serve any other purpose than to mediate the presence of Christ, so the icon, once overshadowed by the Spirit, cannot be used for any purpose other than to actualize the presence of its own prototype. When used in this way the holiness of icons function as an interface between the human and the divine. The icon, then, functions as God’s chosen instrument, a window onto the transcendent world giving us a glimpse of those who inhabit that celestial kingdom of perfected holiness. In doing so the icon stirs within us our own desire for holiness and, with the help of the Holy Spirit, helps move us toward that selfsame perfection. By way of summary, let me say that all six of these gifts or tools are given to the Church in order to facilitate our movement toward holiness, 75.  Orthodox Church in America, Priest’s Service Book, 213.

110

Ecclesial Goodness

toward our ultimate destiny, deification. If a Church possesses and uses these tools, then it is in keeping with our discussion so far to call that group a Church that is good and holy. The Church as Delectable Goodness

To say that the Church is good is also to say that it satisfies the desires of its members. Of course, we do not mean just any desire, since some of our cravings are evil (Rom 7:8; Col 3:5), but rather desires that when satisfied bring spiritual pleasure because they contribute to one’s gradual sanctification. So if we are going to speak of ecclesial pleasure, we will have to qualify it by calling it a sanctifying pleasure or holy pleasure, coming as the satisfaction of the desire for deification. But given the sinfulness of humankind, we might wonder if that desire has not been all but eliminated, or if we have completely lost track of the destiny toward which we trend. That might be true if the image after which we were created had been totally destroyed by the fall into sin. Indeed, this might seem to be the case, since most of our desires have fallen prey to what St. Maximus the Confessor so aptly calls self-love. According to him, desire is born of the interaction between the soul and the body. As long as the mind (soul) is in communion with God, it has true knowledge and is able to control the use of the will and the emotions. If that connection is lost or ignored, the knowledge of and love of God fades and is replaced by self-love.76 Control is passed to the physical senses, which drive the will and the emotions, triggering the passions. St. Maximus puts it this way: The more a man lives by the senses, concerned only with the knowledge of the visible, the more he amasses around him the ignorance of God, the more he is engrossed in the tasting by the senses of known materials; and the more he consumes them, the more the passionate love of self is inflamed within him, started by this taste. And the more he cultivates the passionate love of himself, the more he invents other ways of pleasure, as the fruit and the goal of self-love. And because pleasure always has pain as its successor, he pounces with all his strength on pleasure because of the passionate love for himself . . . . And forcing himself to avoid pain for the same love, he causes the birth of innumerable ruin-producing passions. Thus, if he pampers the love of self by 76.  “Guard yourself from that mother of vices, self-love . . . .” Maximus the Confessor, Four Hundred Texts on Love, Second Century, 59 (p. 75).

111

Being the Church

pleasure he gives birth to gluttony, pride, vainglory, conceit, love of money . . . .77

So we will have to be exceedingly careful in associating human desire and pleasure with the sanctification offered by the Church. Not every desire we have is going to be appropriate or satisfiable in the realm of sanctification. Some of these desires will simply blunt the efforts of the Holy Spirit, corrupting his sanctifying power and diverting it to the service of self-love. Unfortunately, this can and does happen in the church when we experience God as a particular kind of music, or speaker, or form of worship, rather than as himself, in his own person. Nevertheless, while self-love represents a distortion, it does not eradicate the image of the personal Creator inscribed in the human spirit. In any case, as far as the faithful are concerned, through baptism they have entered into new life in Christ, and through chrismation they have been given the seal of the Holy Spirit. In them the power of self-love is broken and they are on their way to becoming more and more like God in his holiness. They are now awake to the presence of God and in them there arises a natural desire for holiness and goodness. Whether you are aware of it or not, you crave goodness. (Something caused you to pick up a book with the word holiness in the title.) In the depths of your being, you ache for goodness; we all do. Our souls long for a sense of wholeness, and goodness is essential for wholeness. We are made for goodness like we are made to breathe, like we are made to love. Goodness is the strength of our condition.78

If that is the case, we can understand the appeal of the scriptural writers to wholesome, holy desires. Proverbs 11:23 tell us “the desire of the righteous is only good.” Elsewhere we are told to desire the “best gifts” (1 Cor 12:31), “prophecy” (1 Cor 14:1), “to be with Christ” (1 Pet 1:23), a godly life in Christ (2 Tim 3:12), a better, heavenly country (Heb 11:16), “the pure milk of the Word” (1 Pet 2:2), and of course God himself (Ps 73:25). These things, then, and not the base desires of human self-love, are what we associate with sanctified pleasure or craving. We don’t come to the Church in order to be pleasured, to have our likes and dislikes fulfilled in the supposed beauty of its incense, its vestments, or its music. Speaking of music, 77.  Cited in Staniloae, Orthodox Spirituality, 101–2. 78. Eldredge, Utter Relief of Holiness, 5.

112

Ecclesial Goodness

we know that the early Church, very much in contrast to contemporary churches, rejected certain forms of music as being unsuitable for worship. Above all, the forms and types of music connected with the great public spectacles such as festivals, competitions, and dramatic performances, as well as the music of more intimate convivial occasions were regarded by many as unsuitable for the Church, not so much from any dislike of music itself as from the need to wean the increasing numbers of converts away from everything associated with their pagan past.79

The Church fathers Did not deny, of course, that the sound of music is pleasurable; but they maintained that all pleasures must be judged in accordance with the platonic principle that beautiful things exist to remind us of divine and perfect beauty and therefore those seeming beauties of the world which inspire only self-centered enjoyment, or desire of possession, are to be rejected . . . . Specifically, their philosophy was that music is the servant of religion. Only that music is worthy to be heard in Church, which by means of its charms opens the mind to Christian teachings and disposes it to holy thoughts. Since they believed that music without words cannot do this, they at first, excluded instrumental music from public worship.80

Unfortunately, music is a very difficult topic because many Christians feel that their own desires, likes, and dislikes, whatever they happen to be, are all equally sanctifying. If they like certain music, then they have a “right” to use it in church. If they like a certain worship style, then that justifies its use. Don’t we have to at least ask the question, “What is appropriate to Christian worship?” Consider St. Augustine’s caution. Yet again, when I remember the tears I shed at the Psalmody of Thy Church, in the beginning of my recovered faith; and how at this time I am moved, not with the singing, but with the things sung, when they are sung with a clear voice and modulation most suitable, I acknowledge the great use of this institution. Thus I fluctuate between peril of pleasure and approved wholesomeness; inclined the rather (though not as pronouncing an irrevocable opinion) to approve of the usage of singing in the church; that so by the delight of the ears the weaker minds may rise to the feeling of devotion. Yet when it befalls me to be more moved with the 79. Grout and Palisca, History of Western Music, 24–25. 80. Ibid., 34.

113

Being the Church

voice than the words sung, I confess to have sinned [criminally], and then had rather not hear music.81

However, if the biblical injunctions are taken seriously, then we see that our self-directed likes and dislikes are not relevant simply because we have them. To be relevant they have to be related to the Church’s purpose of sanctification, that is, ever more intimate communion with Christ himself. That being the case, it is the presence of our God that has to be the primary object of our desire. There is, indeed, no pleasure that surpasses the warmth, joy, and peace of being in God’s presence. Everything about the Church is designed to facilitate an awareness of that divine pleasure. This is nicely expressed by one of our morning prayers: May we not be found fallen and idle, but watching and upright in activity, ready to accompany Him into the joy and divine palace of His glory, where there is the ceaseless sound of those that keep festival, and the unspeakable delight of those that behold the ineffable beauty of Thy countenance.82

Since the Church is the body of Christ and the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit, it does, through the Spirit, satisfy all of our desire for holiness. This is God’s sole desire for us; as the prophet Ezekiel said, he does not “wish the death of the impious, rather that the impious turn back from his way and he live” (Ezek 33:11, LXX). And so we can say that the Church is good because it satisfies our every spiritual desire, because it helps us on the way toward sanctification, because it has the power to sanctify, and because, in its heavenly mode, it is the perfection of all its members. Accidental Indicators of Ecclesial Goodness

If an entity that is really the Church is truly good, then it must exhibit some accidental indictors of that goodness. Absolute goodness itself is, of course, beyond measure. The Church is either good and holy or it is not the Church, and this has nothing to do with its size, budget, educational program, or the many other things that Church growth proponents count. However, we have seen that a Church is good because it possesses and uses the Holy Spirit–empowered sacraments, which contribute to the gradual sanctification of its members. So if the sacraments are available in 81. Augustine, Confessions, 10.33. 82.  “Morning Prayers.”

114

Ecclesial Goodness

a particular assembly, then we can safely infer that the deifying process of sanctification is also present and active. If that is happening, then we can also expect some reflection of that in the form of practical and developing holiness among the members, specifically in terms of the New Testament descriptions of this work of the Spirit, such as St. Paul’s list of the fruits of the Spirit. In either case, it will still be difficult to count this movement, but we might gain some concrete indication of holiness by measuring the actual presence and availability of the sacraments, the use of the gifts of tradition, and the practices and perceptions of holiness as reported by the faithful themselves. To do this we will need to develop what I will call a sacrament inventory, an assessment of tradition, and a holiness index. Sacrament Inventory

The purpose of this instrument will be to provide a rough estimate of the availability, nature, and the frequency of a given group’s use of the sacraments. If we can develop a means of giving these factors numeric expression, we will be able to compare various groups with one another, but more importantly be able to measure the development within one group over time. All of this can be arranged in a table (see below). In the “Availability” column we will assign each sacrament a value of one to ten depending on the nature and the presence of the sacrament, that is, a one if the sacrament is missing altogether or if the practice is not considered a sacrament by its practitioners, and a ten if it is present in its fully canonical form. In the case of baptism, we will assign a one where baptism is either absent or is not seen as having the transformative power of the Holy Spirit. If it is considered a work of the Spirit, we assign a value of five. Then we will identify various practices by adding three more points for triple immersion, two points for single immersion, one point for sprinkling. Finally, we will add another two points for baptism done in the name of the Trinity, but one if it is done only in Jesus’ name. So in the case of an Orthodox baptism we have five points for its sacramental nature, three more for triple immersion, and another two for being done in the name of the Trinity, for a total of ten. A Methodist assembly might get five for a sacramental understanding, another one for sprinkling, and one more for being done in the name of Christ, for a total of seven. A completely nondenominational, Baptist-type group would get one for a non-sacramental practice, two for single immersion, and one for a Jesus-only approach, for a total of four. 115

Being the Church

In the case of chrismation, we will retain the one-to-five value for sacramentality or its absence, another three to five for actually anointing the candidates with chrism on various parts of their bodies. So a canonical Orthodox chrismation would be given a score of ten, while a Methodist confirmation might rate a five since they don’t anoint with chrism, but depending on how they see the role of the Holy Spirit may well fall into the sacramental range. In the case of the nondenominational group where none of these things are done, we would assign a value of one. As for the Eucharist, we again score the sacramental nature of the rite with one to five, its administration by a priest ordained by a bishop with two more points, and another three for recognizing that the elements are indeed the very body and the very blood of our Savior. On confession, I know of only three Churches that practice confession as a sacrament: the Orthodox, Catholic, and Episcopal. So we are basically limited to giving either a one for its absence or a full ten for its availability in its canonical form. For marriage, holy orders, and holy unction, we are pretty much reduced to assigning something in the one-to-ten range depending on the presence and strength of the sacramental role of the Holy Spirit. As far as I know, the only Churches that see marriage as a sacrament are the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic. We will leave holy orders out of this table since it is factored in in the canonical administration of the other sacraments and since it is not repeated regularly in any given parish. Holy unction can also be ranged on a scale from one to ten depending on the degree to which it is considered a sacrament. A simple non-sacramental praying for the sick as commanded in James 5:14–15 would be given a one and the full canonical expression as in the Orthodox service books would be given a ten. That leaves some room for a, perhaps subjective, valuation of other practices along that scale. However, this inventory of sacraments must go beyond a simple statement of availability and type. It must also include something about the frequency with which the sacraments are practiced. This must also factor in the size of the group, since you would expect more baptisms in a church of one thousand than you would in a church of one hundred. To do this, the fourth column in our table, “Frequency,” will take the number of times a sacrament is celebrated per year. The fifth column will include the “Size” of the congregation. We then calculate a “Size Factor” by dividing the number of members by fifty. This last move will standardize the values at the same 116

Ecclesial Goodness

Sac. Index

Frequency Factor

Size Factor

Size

Frequency

Presence

Sacrament

Group

number of members (fifty) no matter how large the group happens to be. In the next column we will then divide the square roots (in order to flatten the range) of the frequency and the size factor to create a “Frequency Value.” Then we can multiply the square root of that value by the square root of the “Availability” column to summarize everything into a single sacramental index value. Finally, we can take the mean of these values and arrive at a composite “Sacramental Index” for each group.

HTOC

Baptism

10

8

107

2.14

2.34

3.91

HTOC

Chrismation

10

12

107

2.14

2.86

5.35

HTOC

Eucharist

10

60

107

2.14

6.40

8.00

HTOC

Confession

10

200

107

2.14

11.69

10.81

HTOC

Marriage

10

4

107

2.14

1.65

4.07

HTOC

Unction

10

1

107

2.14

0.83

2.88

Composite Index

5.84

UMC

Baptism

7

6

275

5.5

1.60

2.98

UMC

Chrismation

5

10

275

5.5

2.06

2.68

UMC

Eucharist

5

12

275

5.5

2.26

2.74

UMC

Confession

1

1

275

5.5

0.65

0.90

UMC

Marriage

1

2

275

5.5

0.92

0.98

UMC

Unction

1

1

275

5.5

0.65

0.90

Composite Index

1.86

BAPT

Baptism

4

8

380

7.6

1.70

2.28

BAPT

Chrismation

1

1

380

7.6

0.60

0.88

BAPT

Eucharist

1

12

380

7.6

2.09

1.20

BAPT

Confession

1

1

380

7.6

0.60

0.88

BAPT

Marriage

1

4

380

7.6

1.20

1.05

BAPT

Unction

1

1

380

7.6

0.60

0.88

Composite Index

1.20

NOND

Baptism

1

5

500

10

1.26

1.06

NOND

Chrismation

1

1

500

10

0.56

0.87

117

4

500

Size Factor

Size

Frequency

Presence 1

10

Sac. Index

Eucharist

Frequency Factor

NOND

Sacrament

Group

Being the Church

1.12

1.03

NOND

Confession

1

1

500

10

0.56

0.87

NOND

Marriage

1

6

500

10

1.38

1.08

NOND

Unction

1

1

500

10

0.56

0.87

Composite Index

0.96

Table 2: Sacrament Inventory

With this in place we can then take the mean of the Sacramental Index for each group and compare them. In this example we have the following values: Orthodox 5.84, Methodist 1.86, Baptist 1.20, and NonDenominational 0.96. Interpreting these figures, we see that the Orthodox Church is about twice as sacramental as the Methodist group and places five times as much emphasis on the sacraments than do the Baptists and the Non-Denominational groups. The higher the index value, the greater the sanctifying presence of the Holy Spirit empowered sacraments, the greater that particular assembly’s ability to lead its members to holiness, and thus a greater level of ecclesial goodness. Of course, there will always be room to improve. Even the high index value for the Orthodox Church indicates the need for renewed vigilance, especially in the area of confession and unction for the sick.83 A Gifts of Tradition Assessment

Another thing we can do to determine the degree to which sanctification is taking place in a local congregation is to assess the use of the gifts of 83.  Another statistical method that could be used is called the analytic hierarchy process. It uses matrix math to do a pair-wise comparison between a number of criteria and participants. Running this for the Orthodox Church gives us the following weights for each of the sacraments: baptism 26.9 percent, chrismation 23.3 percent, Eucharist 26.7 percent, confession 12.2 percent, marriage 6.8 percent, unction 4 percent. The following weights are for what I think is a typical Methodist Church: baptism 51.6 percent, chrismation 8.3 percent, Eucharist 23.1 percent, confession 5.3 percent, marriage 7.2 percent, unction 4.5 percent. These results confirm the basic findings shown in the table above. For an Excel AHP template see http://bpmsg.com/ahp-excel-template.

118

Ecclesial Goodness

tradition. To do this we will not be able to simply count the occurrences of the individual gifts, as in the number of Bible studies or sermons. Rather, we will have to determine if these gifts are being used to their fullest extent, that is, if all opportunities for their use, both in the assembly and individually, are being taken advantage of. Again this is not a matter of counting events or participants, but rather determining availability or presence. Take the gift of Scripture as an example. In what ways is it or could it be used by the assembly to help sanctify its members? If we begin with the Sunday liturgy, we see immediately that much of the text of the service is taken directly from Scripture. For example, the first three antiphons sung are Psalm 103, Psalm 146, and the Beatitudes (Matt 5:3–12).84 By using Scripture as the basis for the hymns sung on a weekly basis, the faithful begin to memorize these passages and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit are able to penetrate their hearts and minds with sanctifying effect. Similarly, we have the readings of the Epistle and the Gospel along with a homily that helps interpret one or the other for use in the lives of the faithful. What is true of the divine liturgy is also true of all of the other services of the liturgical cycle: the Hours, Nocturns, Matins, Vespers, and so on. So, depending on the resources of the local parish, providing a full cycle of services is one way of exposing the faithful to the deifying power of the Holy Scriptures. In addition to this, the local Church can also schedule weekly classes or study groups that focus on the Scriptures. But what then of the daily lives of the faithful outside the liturgical cycle of services? Here the Church relies on the lectionary of daily Bible readings, which the believers are urged to read during their morning prayers. In this case, we can take advantage of modern technology and send the readings each morning by email to an Internet group that can then discuss the text during the day. In any case, if the Word of God is an aid in the sanctification of the faithful, then the local Church must do all it can to expose them to the Scriptures and the study of the Scriptures using every opportunity, both corporate and individual. This, of course, could be repeated for each one of these gifts of tradition. Another clear example can be seen in the veneration of the saints, our examples of holy living. In our services there is always a place in the dismissal or benediction for a mention of the saint(s) of the day. For example, at the end of our divine liturgy we end the service with these words: 84. It has been pointed out that the text of the Orthodox liturgy is almost entirely taken from or based on Holy Scripture. See Nasr, Bible in the Liturgy.

119

Being the Church

May He who rose from the dead, Christ our true God, through the prayers of His most pure Mother; of the holy, glorious and all-laudable apostles; of our father among the saints, John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople; of Saint _________, whom we commemorate today; of the holy and righteous Ancestors of God, Joachim and Anna; and of all the saints: have mercy on un and save us, for He is good and loves mankind.85

Each Sunday we insert, or should insert, the name of the saint commemorated that day. One problem with this is that the people are often unfamiliar with the life of that particular saint. It is true, of course, that that saint has already been mentioned in a number of the hymns sung that day. But we may still need more information. For that reason, we might choose to read from the life of that saint after Vespers the evening before and thus familiarize the faithful with the sanctified life of that saint. The individual believers can also follow this practice during their daily morning prayers. Our prayer calendars contain references to the saints commemorated each day and their lives are readily available. So if we want something as sanctifying as the examples of gradual deification evident in the lives of the saints, we will have to facilitate familiarity with them at every opportunity, both in the assembly and among the faithful individually. An Index of Holiness

So far we have been talking about how the Church can initiate and support sanctification through its sacraments and the gifts of its tradition. The other side of this discussion is the life of each individual believer. How can we measure the degree to which they are actually becoming holy, or at least the degree to which they themselves perceive that progress to be taking place? One thing we might do is ask them to rank a series of biblical indicators of holiness on a scale of one to ten. I recently encountered something like this when asked by a nurse at the clinic to indicate the degree of pain I was having by picking a number on a scale of one to ten, one being no pain and ten being extreme pain. While this is quite subjective, it does quantify an otherwise difficult-to-measure aspect of human life.86 This technique has also been used in the context of questionnaires that seek to quantify appar85.  Orthodox Church in America, Priest’s Service Book, 268. 86.  As St. Chrysostom points out, “no man knows the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him.” John Chrysostom, Treatise Concerning the Priesthood, 2.3.

120

Ecclesial Goodness

ent intangibles such as opinions and feelings.87 In the case of holiness, we could take our series of indicators from the New Testament description of the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:22–23). The assumption here is that if the Holy Spirit is indeed performing a sanctifying work in the life of an individual, then certain fruits, accidental indicators, will be apparent. So we could ask each respondent to indicate with a number from one to ten whether each indicator is characteristic of his or her life. Something like, “To what extent does joy describe or characterize your life?” This instrument could also be constructed in such a way as to measure the individual’s progress across time. The following table shows how this might be arranged. Holiness Factors

10 Years Ago

Today

Difference

Love

6

8

2

Joy

4

8

4

Peace

4

8

4

Patience

4

6

2

Faithfulness

8

8

0

Self-Control

6

8

2

Kindness

8

8

0

Goodness

6

8

2

Gentleness

6

8

2

Longing for God

4

10

6

Holiness Index

5.6

8

2.4

Table 3: Holiness Index

From this we can calculate a composite value (the mean of the individual values) and have some indication of the level of perceived holiness as well as the change over the course of ten years. It would then be possible to interview all the members of a particular group, take the composite index

87.  See Rommen, Namenschristentum.

121

Being the Church

for each, and arrive at an estimate of the level of holiness present in the whole group. 10 Years Ago

Today

Difference

Peter

 

5.6

8.0

2.4

Mary

5.0

6.4

1.4

John

7.4

5.6

-1.8

 

6.0

6.7

0.7

Table 4: Growth of Holiness

If we then interpret these values, we see that two of the individuals have noticed an increase in sanctity over the last ten years, while the third has experienced a decline. Taken together, this congregation has experienced a slight decline in perceived holiness during that time. These then are my suggestions for measuring the accidental indicators of holiness. By doing it this way, I believe that we are in fact measuring the right sorts of things, and that the results actually do tell us something about the Church’s being, namely, that it is either in the process of being made holy or not. If not, we can conclude that it has drifted away from the biblical ideal of the Church. If it is being made holy, then we can affirm its goodness and its ecclesial being.

122

4 Ecclesial Beauty On The Catholicity of the Church

Lord, I have loved the beauty of thy house, and the place of the abode of thy glory. Sanctify those that love the beauty of thy house. Glorify them in return by thy divine power, and forsake us not that hope in thee.1

E

verything that exists has a certain beauty because it participates in the beauty of the perfection or the ideal form of itself. According to Plato, beauty is a self-subsisting eidos that constitutes the realm of primary realities, the archai of the universe. When looking at beauty in the created world, we find at least three types of beauty: the sensual, that is, pulchritude found in sensible objects, the intellectual, possessed by ideas, theories, logic, and mathematics, sometimes called elegance; and the moral, that is, the good. In general terms, beautiful things are those things that are pleasing to apprehend and contemplate. However, because this involves individual perception, it is notoriously difficult for us to always agree on just what is or is not beautiful, elegant, or good. So before I can speak of the beauty of ecclesial catholicity, I will first have to refine our understanding of beauty by taking note of the several different ways in which it can be apprehended: subjectively or objectively, as something finite or infinite, as 1.  Orthodox Church in America, Priest’s Service Book, 102, 165.

123

Being the Church

spiritual (internal) or physical (external), and as an isolated characteristic or an ever-present quality. That done, I will move on to the geographic, doctrinal, communal, and salvific universality of the Church and show that because these are inevitable and necessary manifestations of ecclesial beauty, catholicity must be considered a transcendental attribute or property of the true Church. On the Meaning of Beauty

Subjective or Objective

In our world of experience beauty is something that is perceived by human sensibility as pleasurable. Is this, then, the same thing as the delectable goodness discussed in the previous chapter? No it is not, for two reasons. On the one hand, even though the beautiful is always good, not everything that is good is perceived to be beautiful. A piece of machinery may be good for some purpose, but not aesthetically pleasing. On the other hand, the pleasure aroused by the beautiful is not the same pleasure aroused by the good. Things that have to do with the satisfaction of the lower senses, such as a good meal, are not normally associated with the beautiful. If we look at it carefully, we see that beauty is invariably a pleasure peculiar to knowledge, to apprehension, perception, imagination, or contemplation. For that reason we can say that the beautiful falls into the domain of the “two higher senses, seeing and hearing, which approximate most closely to intellect, and which, through the imagination, furnish data for contemplation to the intellect.”2 But if this pleasure is the result of contemplation, isn’t it the same thing as truth? Again we have to reject this idea, since not everything that is true excites a perception of beauty. An arithmetic statement may well be true but not necessarily beautiful. The beautiful, then, is always true, either as actual or as ideal; but the true is beautiful only when it so reveals itself as to arouse in us the desire to see or hear it, to consider it, to dwell and rest in the contemplation of it. Contemplation implies cognition; while the feeling of pleasure, complacency, satisfaction, delight, indicates 2. Coffey, Ontology, 128.

124

Ecclesial Beauty

the operation of appetite or will. Now the notion of the beautiful, like all our notions, has its origin in sense experience; but it is itself supra-sensible for it is reached by abstraction, and this is above the power of sense faculties.3

So the conviction that something is beautiful is actually an expression of artistic culture, education, that is, the many ways in which the “individual’s intelligence affected by numerous concrete personal dispositions both of the sentient and of the spiritual order, not only cognitive and appetitive but temperamental and emotional.”4 It is this subjective aspect of the perception of beauty that makes it so difficult to define. What for one person might be beautiful may not be so for someone else, beauty being in the eye of the beholder. Does this mean that we have no objective factors that would allow us to agree that at least some things are beautiful? Some have suggested just that. Peter Coffey, for example, lists three such factors. The object which evokes the esthetic pleasure of contemplation must in the first place be complete or perfect of its kind . . . the object must in the second place have a certain largeness or amplitude, a certain greatness or power, whereby it can act energetically on our cognitive faculties and stimulate them to vigorous action. A third requisite for beauty is that the object be in itself duly proportioned, orderly, well arranged.5

St. Thomas Aquinas sums up the “objective conditions of the beautiful: integrity or perfection, proportion or harmony, and clarity or splendor,” leading Coffey to define “the beauty of an object [as] the manifestation of its natural perfection by the proportion of its parts and the harmony of its activities.”6 Of course, this is not quite as definitive as it might seem. David Bentley Hart speaks of a Thomist friend who insists that unless a day has certain characteristics, such as a blue sky, fluffy clouds, and lots of sun, it cannot be considered a beautiful day, in spite of the fact that many of us find great beauty in a rainy day.7

3. Ibid., 129. 4. Ibid., 131. 5. Ibid., 131–32. 6. Ibid., 134. 7. Hart, “Beauty, Being, Kenosis,” 21.

125

Being the Church

Finite or Infinite

Another distinction we can make is between infinite beauty and the finite reflection of it. According to the fathers of the Church, beauty can be associated with the infinite as well as the finite, such as the created world (Luke 12:28), human beings themselves, vestments and sacred vessels, or even the Church building. St. Gregory of Nyssa speaks of human beings reflecting the beauty of the divine archetypal beauty.8 St. Basil the Great, speaking of the faithful, states that After a man is purified from the shame whose stain he took through his wickedness, and has come back again to his natural beauty, and as it were cleaning the Royal Image and restoring its ancient form, only thus is it possible for him to draw near to the Paraclete. And He, like the sun, will by the aid of your purified eye, show you in Himself the image of the invisible, and in the blessed spectacle of the image you shall behold the unspeakable beauty of the archetype.9

When we speak of the beauty of God’s house (Ps 26:8), we refer to the physical temple (Exod 28:2, 40; 2 Chr 3:6) and to the holy garments (Exod 28:2). Praising the construction of new Church buildings, Eusebius writes: And in what city but in this newly built and God-constructed one, which is a ‘church of the living God, a pillar and foundation of the truth,’concerning which also another divine oracle thus proclaims, ‘Glorious things have been spoken of thee, Oh city of God.’ Since the all-gracious God has brought us together to it, through the grace of his Only-Begotten, let every one of those who have been summoned sing with loud voice and say, “I was glad when they said unto me, we shall go unto the house of the Lord,” and “Lord, I have loved the beauty of thy house and the place where thy glory dwelleth.”10

The physical temple, the Church, is the place where the beauty, glory, holiness, and perfection of God dwells (Ps 27:4, 96:6). This is, of course, a reflection of the glorious moral attributes, the infinite perfections of God (Isa 40:5; Acts 7:2; Rom 1:23, 9:23; Eph 1:12). Jesus, in particular, is said to be the “brightness of the Father’s glory” (Heb 1:3; John 1:14, 2:11). So the 8. Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity, 12. 9.  Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 9.23. 10. Eusebius, Church History, 10.4.7.

126

Ecclesial Beauty

Church serves as a point of transition between the infinite beauty of God and the reflected beauty of the created world. In the New Testament, the LXX terms for beauty (kallos, kallone, horaiotes) only occurs four times (in adjectival form, horaios), each time referencing external or physical beauty (Matt 23:27; Acts 3:2, 10; Rom 10:15). However, the glory (doxa) “is used essentially as a synonym of ” beauty.11 Indeed, the glory of God is the manifestation of his beauty. Note the way St. Macarius describes the effect of Christ’s beauty on the soul. So the soul that is thoroughly illuminated by the inexpressible beauty of the glory of the light of the face of Christ, and partakes of the Holy Spirit in perfection, and is thought worthy to become the mansion and the throne of God, becomes all eye, all light, and all face, and all glory, and all spirit; Christ himself who governs and drives, and carries and supports her, thus preparing her, and thus gracing and adorning her with spiritual beauty.12

One of the places that he shows us that glory is in his house, the Church. Of course, this is the beauty of the bridegroom13 and is most evident in the Eucharist. It is also interesting that the liturgical prayers speak of the sanctification and the glorification of the faithful. If we are correct in associating divine glory and beauty, then to glorify is to beautify, that is, to make participate in the infinite, archetypal divine beauty (Ps 90:17). And so we pray, “sanctify those that love the beauty of thy house. Glorify [beautify] them in return by thy divine power.”14 Spiritual or Physical (Internal, External)

These differences between finite and infinite beauty lead to yet another distinction, namely, the contrast between physical and spiritual beauty. According to Constantine Cavarnos, “in every epoch, from Antiquity to the present, the word (beauty) has appeared in various writings to characterize something inward, spiritual as well as something external, physical.”15 This

11. Cavarnos, Spiritual Beauty, 20–24. 12.  Macarius the Egyptian, Spiritual Homilies, 1.3. 13. Gregory of Nazianzus, Orations, 37.11. 14.  Orthodox Church in America, Priest’s Service Book, 102. 15. Cavarnos, Spiritual Beauty, 9.

127

Being the Church

is true of Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus, all speaking of the beauty of the soul. St. Augustine echoes this idea. Too late loved I Thee, O Thou Beauty of ancient days, yet ever new! too late I loved Thee! And behold, Thou wert within, and I abroad, and there I searched for Thee; deformed I, plunging amid those fair forms which Thou hadst made. Thou wert with me, but I was not with Thee. Things held me far from Thee, which, unless they were in Thee, were not at all. Thou calledst, and shoutedst, and burstest my deafness. Thou flashedst, shonest, and scatteredst my blindness. Thou breathedst odours, and I drew in breath and panted for Thee. I tasted, and hunger and thirst. Thou touchedst me, and I burned for Thy peace.16

The Church teaches that we become holy through participation in God’s holiness and hence beautiful in soul. That is why we are not to concentrate on outer beauty, but rather on that which is supra-sensible, apprehended by the spiritual senses. “The divine beauty is not set forth in comeliness of design or coloring; but is contemplated in speechless blessedness according to its virtue.”17 The Septuagint speaks often about external beauty. But the Wisdom of Solomon (7:28, 8:2) does point to an internal beauty by calling wisdom beautiful. “Wisdom is more beautiful than the sun and all the array of stars; and compared with light is found to be superior. . . . Her have I loved from the time of my youth, and became a lover of her beauty.” As already mentioned, the New Testament tends to use the term for glory as a synonym for the LXX word for beauty. In doing so it focuses our attention on the possibility of inner or spiritual beauty. In Matthew 23:27 Jesus speaks of being beautiful outwardly while being full of uncleanness on the inside (see also Matt 6:29–30; Luke 12:27; 1 Pet 3:3–5). But of this inner beauty St. Basil the Great asks, “What is more wonderful than the Divine Beauty? What conception of God’s magnificence is more glorious? Altogether ineffable and inexpressible are the flashes of the Divine Beauty. . . . This beauty is invisible to physical eyes, it is apprehended only by the soul and the mind.”18 And what is this inner beauty like? Listen again to St. Basil. Through His aid hearts are lifted up, the weak are held by the hand, and they who are advancing are brought to perfection. Shining 16. Augustine, Confessions, 10.27. 17.  John of Damascus, On Holy Images. 18.  Basil the Great, cited in Cavarnos, Spiritual Beauty, 24–25.

128

Ecclesial Beauty

upon those that are cleansed from every spot, He makes them spiritual by fellowship with Himself. Just as when a sunbeam falls on bright and transparent bodies, they themselves become brilliant too, and shed forth a fresh brightness from themselves, so souls wherein the Spirit dwells, illuminated by the Spirit, themselves become spiritual, and send forth their grace to others.19

Objective Characteristic or Ever-Present Quality

We quite naturally speak of beauty as a characteristic of some object. But if beauty is infinite, if there is a divine archetype that permeates creation, should it not be evident everywhere? Speaking of the Thomistic definition of beauty, David Bentley Hart admits that, while limited, it does contain a “profound and indispensable insight: that is, the beautiful is something that pleases simply by virtue of being seen or heard, or felt, of thought, or otherwise intuited—and for no reason other than that.”20 But, he continues, Whatever the beautiful is, it is not simply harmony, or symmetry, or consonance, or ordonnance, or brightness all of which can become anodyne or vacuous of themselves; the beautiful can be encountered—sometimes shatteringly—precisely where all of these things are deficient or largely absent.21

Is it not an experience of “sheer fortuity”?22 Is it not true that the beautiful presents itself as an entirely unwarranted, unnecessary, and yet marvelously fitting gift? Beauty—as opposed to mere strikingness, mere brilliancy—is an event, or even (one might say) eventuality as such. The beautiful affords us our most perfect experience of that existential wonder—that is the beginning of all speculative wisdom.23

So we can see beauty as something that “suffuses all distances, the excess of his infinity remains beauty, even as it spills over and erases boundaries.”24 As an ancient hymn has it: 19.  Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit. 20. Hart, “Beauty, Being, Kenosis,” 20. 21. Ibid., 22. 22. Ibid., 23. 23. Ibid., 24. 24. Ibid., 30.

129

Being the Church

O Christ a light unfailing, A beauty lasting, rare, Shines in Thy face to charm us, And cheer us everywhere.25

And so it is there on a rainy day, it is evident in the incarnation, present where God enters the realms of the godless and the sinful, and it is especially there at the crucifixion. As Methodius reminds those who might be ashamed of the cross: Some think that God also, whom they measure with the measure of their own feelings, judges the same thing that wicked and foolish men judge to be subjects of praise and blame, and that He uses the opinions of men as His rule and measure, not taking into account the fact that, by reason of the ignorance that is in them, every creature falls short of the beauty of God. For He draws all things to life by His Word, from their universal substance and nature. For whether He would have good, He Himself is the Very Good, and remains in Himself; or, whether the beautiful is pleasing to Him, since He Himself is the Only Beautiful, He beholds Himself, holding in no estimation the things which move the admiration of men. That, verily, is to be accounted as in reality the most beautiful and praiseworthy, which God Himself esteems to be beautiful, even though it be condemned and despised by all else—not that which men fancy to be beautiful. Whence it is, that although by this figure, He hath willed to deliver the soul from corrupt affections, to the signal putting to shame of the demons, we ought to receive it, and not to speak evil of it, as being that which was given us to deliver us, and set us free from the chains which for our disobedience we incurred. For the Word suffered, being in the flesh affixed to the cross, that He might bring man, who had been deceived by error, to His supreme and godlike majesty, restoring him to that divine life from which he had become alienated. By this figure, in truth, the passions are blunted; the passion of the passions having taken place by the Passion, and the death of death by the death of Christ, He not having been subdued by death, nor overcome by the pains of the Passion. For neither did the Passion cast Him down from His equanimity, nor did death hurt Him, but He was in the passible remaining impassible, and in the mortal remaining immortal, comprehending all that the air, and this middle state, and the heaven above contained, and attempering the mortal 25.  John the Monk, Idiomela.

130

Ecclesial Beauty

to the immortal divinity. Death was vanquished entirely; the flesh being crucified to draw forth its immortality.26

On Ecclesial Beauty

These, then, are the many ways in which we conceive of beauty. What does all of this have to do with the Church? Can these concepts be mapped onto the nature of the true Church? Indeed, we can rightly speak of the splendor of sacred space created by the Church, the glory of the divine presence manifest in the Church, the radiance of the faithful participating in the divine archetype, and the harmony of perfection that is the result. The Splendor of Scared Space

One of the most obvious ways in which to map the idea of beauty onto the Church is to consider the splendor of the sacred space that the Church is called to create as a dwelling place of God’s own beauty. Here we are speaking of a finite, external, physical, and objective beauty of ecclesial space. We know that God is omnipresent and that he cannot be limited to any particular place. Nevertheless, for our benefit God does choose to manifest himself in specific spaces. There is evidence of God meeting Moses in the localized space of the burning bush (Exod 3: 1–2; Mark 12:26), a space that God himself calls holy or sacred. He was in the pillar of fire and the cloud that guided the Israelites out of Egypt (Exod 13:21). We are told that God met Moses on the top of Mount Sinai. Now the glory of the Lord rested on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days. And on the seventh day He called to Moses out of the midst of the cloud. The sight of the glory of the Lord was like a consuming fire on the top of the mountain in the eyes of the children of Israel. (Exod 24:16–17)

Having established this pattern of localized presence, God commanded Moses to prepare a place for his abiding presence among his people. “So the Lord spoke to Moses, saying . . . ‘And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them’” (25:8). But this was not supposed to be just any ordinary space. God gave them a specific pattern for constructing the 26.  Methodius of Olympus, To Those Who Are Ashamed of the Cross of Christ.

131

Being the Church

tabernacle and asked that the people gather their most precious items in order to build and beautify that space (25:2–9). So objective criteria were established to indicate exactly what it is that constitutes ecclesial beauty. Everything from the ark of the covenant to the vestments of the priests was to be made from gold, precious stones, the finest woods, and skins, all “for glory and for beauty” (28:2, 40). Later, when the people of Israel transitioned from their moveable tabernacle into the permanent temple, it was built with the same concern for creating a space of beauty. Solomon decorated the house with precious stones for beauty, and the gold was gold from Parvaim. He also overlaid the house—the beams and doorposts, its walls and doors—with gold; and he carved cherubim on the walls. (2 Chr 3:6–7)

So these special, sacred spaces created by God’s people as a place for his enduring manifestation were fashioned out of the finest materials and at some great cost to the people. Obviously the ways in which these precious materials are used has varied throughout time and space in keeping with the cultural diversity of the world, so the objective standard here is not a particular artistic expression, but rather the effort to create a special and beautiful space using the finest materials and the most gifted artisans. In other words, these were not ordinary spaces, but were seen to be splendid alternatives to the spaces of everyday life, places set aside for the special purpose of worship, and they were to reflect the beauty of God. To enter into the temple was to be awed by its brilliance. It was like entering another world, a world set apart, in which the space itself was to raise the human spirit to the contemplation of absolute beauty. This practice of building beautiful places of worship is not limited to the Old Testament era. Christians have continued it almost everywhere. As the early Church emerged from the persecutions and began to spread, a great deal of effort and thought went into developing and beautifying ecclesial architecture. Emperor Constantine was known for this activity, erecting magnificent buildings in the holy land and across the Byzantine Empire. He was a great builder of churches, Christian churches. He studded Rome with churches and baptisteries and erected church buildings throughout the empire, including several in Palestine, where his mother Helena traveled. He built other buildings and monuments, but church building was his main architectural preoccupation. Not only did this preoccupation demonstrate Constantine’s official approval of the church, but erecting churches took the place of the

132

Ecclesial Beauty

temple building sponsored by earlier emperors. The location of his buildings in the capital was significant.27

One of the most stunning and enduring examples is the famous Hagia Sophia Church in Constantinople. Speaking of Constantine’s Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, Eusebius marvels at its beauty, saying that is was a noble work rising to a vast height, and of great extent both in length and breadth. The interior of this structure was floored with marble slabs of various colors; while the external surface of the walls, which shone with polished stones exactly fitted together, exhibited a degree of splendor in no respect inferior to that of marble. With regard to the roof, it was covered on the outside with lead, as a protection against the rains of winter. But the inner part of the roof, which was finished with sculptured panel work, extended in a series of connected compartments, like a vast sea, over the whole church; and, being overlaid throughout with the purest gold, caused the entire building to glitter as it were with rays of light.28

Later, St. Vladimir of Kiev took the same approach during the expansion of the Church into Russian lands. From the early centuries of Christianity, it was the custom to raise up churches upon the ruins of pagan sanctuaries or upon the blood of the holy martyrs. Following this practice, St. Vladimir built the church of St. Basil the Great upon a hill where a sanctuary of Perun had been located, and he built the stone church of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos (Desyatinnaya) on the place of the martyrdom of the holy Varangian Martyrs (July 12). The magnificent temple was intended to become the cathedral for the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus, and thus the primal altar of the Russian Church. It was built in five years and was richly adorned with frescoes, crosses, icons, and sacred vessels brought from Korsun. The day of the consecration of the Church of the Most Holy Theotokos, May 12 (in some manuscripts May 11), was ordered by St. Vladimir to be inserted into the Church calendar as an annual celebration. This event was linked with other events celebrated on May 11, and it provided the new Church a twofold sense of continuity. Under this day in the calendar is noted the churchly founding of Constantinople, “dedicated by the holy emperor St 27. Leithart, Defending Constantine, 121. 28. Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 3.36.

133

Being the Church

Constantine as the new capital of the Roman Empire, the city of Constantine is dedicated to the Most Holy Theotokos (330). On this same day of May 11, the church of Sophia, the Wisdom of God was consecrated at Kiev (in the year 960 under St Olga). St Vladimir, having had the cathedral church consecrated to the Most Holy Theotokos, followed the example of St Constantine in dedicating the capital city of the Russian Land (Kiev) to the Queen of Heaven.”29 The Glory of Divine Presence

Of course, the beauty of these sacred spaces is not just a function of their finite glory, but of the infinite, spiritual beauty of God himself. What made the space around the burning bush sacred and beautiful was the special presence of God, not the setting, the architecture, the lighting, and so on. What made both the tabernacle and the temple glorious was that each contained a most holy (holy of holies) place where God was said to meet with the priests (Exod 30:36). As noted above, this space was to be carefully beautified, adorned with oils, implements, the ark of the covenant, an altar, and vestments, all of which were said to be holy by virtue of their proximity to the “dwelling” place of God. Simply touching the holy oil of the tabernacle could make both objects and persons holy (Exod 30:29). So this became the focal point of God’s manifestation to the Old Testament community; here the lamb was slain, atonement made; here the community met God. Notice how often God is referred to as being in the sanctuary (Pss 68:24, 73:17, 77:13, 150:1). This is the very same idea expressed by Solomon upon completing the temple. “I have surely built you an exalted house, and a place for you to dwell in forever” (2 Chr 6:2). And God did respond so that “the glory of the Lord filled the house of God” (2 Chr 5:14). Again, at the dedication of the temple, When Solomon had finished praying, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of the Lord filled the temple. And the priests could not enter the house of the Lord, because the glory of the Lord had filled the Lord’s house. When all the children of Israel saw how the fire came down, and the glory of the Lord on the temple, they bowed their faces to the ground on the pavement, and worshiped and praised

29.  Orthodox Church in America, “Equal of the Apostles Great Prince Vladimir.”

134

Ecclesial Beauty

the Lord, saying: “For He is good, For His mercy endures forever.” (2 Chr 7:1–3)

So God comes to us, dwells with us, and makes holy and beautiful the space that we have created for him in the Church. What, then, is more wondrous than divine beauty? What thought is more pleasant than that of the magnificence of God? What kind of yearning of the soul is so piercing and unbearable as that brought forth by God in the soul purified from all evil, and which from an authentic and true disposition says, “I am wounded by love” [Song 2:5]? The lightning flashes of the divine beauty are absolutely unutterable and ineffable; speech cannot convey them; the ear cannot receive them. The morning star’s rays, and the moon’s brightness, and the sun’s light, all these are unworthy to be mentioned in comparison to that glory, and are found greatly wanting as analogies to the true light. They are more distant from the divine beauty than the depth of night and moonless gloom are from the pure light of noonday. This beauty is not contemplated by fleshly eyes but is grasped by the soul alone and the mind.30

The Radiance of Participation

In John 17:10 Christ says that he has been glorified, that is, beautified in his disciples. What can this possibly mean? What can the disciples’ lives have to do with the glory of the only begotten Son of God? How can they contribute to his eternal beauty? Perhaps we get a clue from St. Paul, who, quoting the Old Testament, talks about how beautiful (glorious) are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace (Rom 10:15). Indeed, even as Jesus was sent into the world, so he sent his own disciples out to proclaim the good tidings of salvation. By doing so they are glorifying Christ, making his name and his accomplishments on the cross appear as pure, infinite beauty in the eyes of their listeners, by participating in the divine mission to the world. But there is another type of participation involved, for Jesus also says that he has beautified all believers by giving them the glory that the Father has given him. “And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have 30.  Basil the Great, On the Human Condition (Kindle ed.), loc. 1757.

135

Being the Church

sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me” (John 17:22). So Jesus says he will glorify all future believers, beautifying them with the glory he has from the Father. And in what does that beauty consist? Certainly not in some kind of external pleasantness, but rather in our unity and in the things we communicate to the world around us. We who were fallen and sullied by sin are now washed clean; we now participate in and thus reflect the infinite, archetypal divine beauty of God himself, of Christ our Lord. (Ps 90:17). And that is what makes everyone of us radiate with beauty, the reflected beauty of Christ. That is why we can pray with St. Patrick, “let Christ be in the heart of everyone who thinks of me, in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me, in every eye that sees me, in every ear that hears me.”31 For not only has Christ been glorified by the Father, but also he has glorified, that is, beautified each and every one of us. So by participating in the glory of God through Christ, each one of the faithful, the members of the eucharistic assembly, are made beautiful, that is, they radiate the glory of God. The Harmony of Perfection

An object is beautiful when its contemplation pleases us, and this takes place when the object, complete and entire in itself, possesses the order, harmony, and proportion of parts that calls forth the full and vigorous exercise of our cognitive activity. All this amounts to saying that the beauty of a thing is the revelation or manifestation of its natural perfection. Perfection is thus the foundation of beauty; the showing forth of this perfection is what constitutes beauty formally.32 To say that the Church is beautiful in this way is to say that it possesses everything it needs to fulfill its purpose and that it does so in a way that is pleasing to contemplate. So we can speak of the harmony of ecclesial perfection. As the very body of the glorified Christ, it is possessed of his perfection; not a piece is missing, not a single imperfection visible. As an assemblage of human believers still making their way to their own eternal perfection, the Church also has an anticipatory perfection. They are a people who have, as the great eucharistic prayer of the divine liturgy says, already been taken up to heaven and had the kingdom that is yet to come 31.  Patrick, “Lorica.” 32. Coffey, Ontology, 133.

136

Ecclesial Beauty

bestowed on them.33 It is a building complete with a divine cornerstone, an apostolic foundation, in which “the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit” (Eph 2:21–22). Of course, this may not always appear to be the case. But those outside and not called to belong to her, behold and know the changes in the external rite by an external knowledge, which does not comprehend the inward knowledge just as also the unchangeableness of God appears to them to be changeable, in the changes of His creations. Wherefore the Church has not been, nor could she be, changed or obscured, nor could she have fallen away, for then she would have been deprived of the spirit of truth. It is impossible that there should have been a time when she could have received error into her bosom, or when the laity, presbyters, and bishops had submitted to instructions or teachings inconsistent with the teaching and spirit of Christ. The Church knows nothing of partial truth and partial error, but only the whole truth without admixture of error.34

So in spite of the limitations of a world still awaiting perfection, the Church is the dwelling place of God and as such reflects the harmony, the pure symmetry of his perfection. The Beauty of Ecclesial Catholicity

So the local Church is beautiful and its members are beautiful in the harmony of ecclesial perfection. What then of the Church universal? How can beauty on that plane be apprehended? As I see it, the beauty of the Church is manifest in what we call its catholicity. St. Cyril of Jerusalem says, It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly; and because it brings into subjection 33.  “Thou didst bring us from nonexistence into being, and when we had fallen away, didst raise us up again, and didst not cease to do all things until thou hadst brought us up to heaven, and hadst bestowed upon us thy kingdom, which is to come.” Orthodox Church in America, Priest’s Service Book, 144. 34. Khomiakov, Church Is One, 20.

137

Being the Church

to godliness the whole race of mankind, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals the whole class of sins, which are committed by soul or body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue which is named, both in deeds and words, and in every kind of spiritual gifts.35

Using St. Cyril’s definition, we see that the beauty of ecclesial catholicity consists in four things. The Ubiquity of Sacred Space

Here we can speak of a geographic universality of the sacred space. Since its earliest day, the fathers of the Church recognized that it was spreading through the inhabited world. There were, it seemed, no places where the gospel and the Church could not take root. As St. Irenaeus put it, “as I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it.”36 This spacial universality ties in nicely with my understanding of the beauty of sacred space. If the glory of a local Church lies in the fact that its members have, through faith and truth, spared no effort to beautify “dwelling place[s] for God in the Spirit,” then the absence of any spacial limitations extends that beauty into the entire realm of creation. There is no inhabited place on earth where the sacred space of the Church cannot and has not been established. So, because of the efforts of the faithful throughout the world, the Church universal is beautifully ubiquitous. There is no place where God does not have the opportunity to manifest himself, his beauty in his Churches. The Elegance of Doctrine

But beauty of ecclesial catholicity is not just a matter it geographic breadth. It is also realized in the elegance of a faith shared by all the faithful by means of its Creed, its Symbol of Faith.37 According to St. Vincent of Lerins, 35. Cyril, Catechetical Lectures, 18.23. 36. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.10. 37.  “In the Orthodox Church the creed is usually called The Symbol of Faith which means literally the “bringing together” and the “expression” or “confession” of the faith.” Hopko, Doctrine.

138

Ecclesial Beauty

in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.38

From the earliest times the Creed was recited or sung at every liturgy, incorporated in the daily prayer rule of the faithful, and required as a statement of faith for those coming to Christ in the Church. It is the baseline, the very foundation, the most elegant answer to the question of what we believe—all of it. And because of its elegance, its beautiful simplicity and completeness, it has been effectively chanted, sung, recited, and memorized, bringing its content to all the faithful throughout the world. This doctrinal universality means that the Church everywhere possesses the unchanging fullness of apostolic doctrine. Because of the Creed we never have to be concerned that some aspect of doctrine may be locally distorted or neglected. It is an effective hedge against heresy. So I speak of the elegant beauty of the Creed because it is the very perfection of what it is, namely, a summary of our universally shared faith. The Communion of Human Diversity

According to St. Cyril the catholicity of the Church is also to be found in what I will call a communal universality, that is, an inclusiveness that transcends all cultural and social divisions. The Church “brings under the yoke of God’s true service all races of men, the mighty and the lowly, the learned and the simple.”39 So there are no tribes or peoples, no groups or individuals anywhere in the world who cannot, by faith, fully participate in or fully own the life of the Church. On the one hand, we are united in what I call a multi-hypostatic unity. That is, we are all personally hypostasized actualiza38.  Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 2.6. 39.  Cyril of Jerusalem, quoted in Thurston, “Catholic.”

139

Being the Church

tions of human nature. It is this nature that joins us, at least as soon as we have our being restored in Christ. So, taken together, we are the Church, a multi-hypostatic unity of ecclesial being. On the other hand, we are united because we share in the one bread and wine of the Eucharist. This becomes the core of a new identity. Thus, the Church “in its essence has the potential, to a far greater extent than any narrow nationalist message, to show us the real meaning of history—and of all cultures, not just one.”40 It is this transcultural nature of the Church that was celebrated at Pentecost. The Church is not itself a culture, and because it stands above all culture it can retain its own identity while offering new life to every other culturally or socially determined identity. This communal universality precludes all hyphenated identities. There are no Eastern Christians or Western Christians. The life that the Church offers to all of humanity belongs equally and fully to all of its members and in Christ. Collectively and without exclusion, they are his one body and are thus radiant with beauty. The Perfection of Salvation

Finally, the beauty of ecclesial catholicity can be seen in its salvific universality. In Christ the Church offers a complete and perfect solution to human sinfulness. According to St. Cyril the Church is catholic because there is no virtue that it does not contain. This moral perfection is this beauty, of course, the possession of God himself, and it is present in the Church in Christ through the Holy Spirit. Because of this there is no aspect of human sinfulness that cannot be overcome by participating in that perfection. Throwing off their dependency on God, our first parents plunged the race into the ongoing destruction of death and the continuous misuse of the tainted free will. In order to provide a solution, Christ accomplished two things: a restoration of human nature and a healing of human will. In the incarnation the divine and the human natures were perfectly united. In the death of Christ our sins were assumed and the fundamental consequence, death itself, was defeated. In the resurrection we have the actualization of the defeat of death and the healing of human nature. Salvation, then, consists of a recapitulation appropriated by faith, i.e., a restoration of human nature and a healing of human will, as well as a forgiveness of sin. And St. John Chrysostom captures what makes this catholic and beautiful. 40. Neamţu, “Revisiting Orthodoxy and Nationalism,” 158.

140

Ecclesial Beauty

No sin is so great it can conquer the munificence of the Master. Even if one is a fornicator, or an adulterer . . . the power of the gift and the love of the Master are great enough to make all these sins disappear and to make the sinner shine more brightly than the rays of the sun . . . . And Christ Himself, addressing the whole human race, said: “Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest . . . .”41

Accidental Indicators of Ecclesial Beauty

As we have seen, the true Church is beautiful in all of its manifestations. However, as important as this is to the identification of the existence and growth of the Church, it is nearly impossible to measure. Certainly no counting can bring us the insight we desire. If beauty is, at least in part, based on subjective perception of the individual, we may not even be able to agree on what it is that we should be counting. Nevertheless, I have established an objective baseline, namely, the use of our most precious materials, to beautify the dwelling place of God. I have also identified other ways in which the members, the teaching, and the unity of the Church can be seen as glorious and beautiful. So, rather than counting, we could look at these four areas of catholic beauty and assess the degree to which we are consciously and deliberately contributing to that beauty, that is, measure the extent to which ecclesial beauty is even important to us. So I propose that we look at the issues of sacred space, doctrine, diversity, and healing. On Sacred Space

What, then, does what we have seen thus far tell us about our own approach to the sacred spaces of the Church today? Unfortunately, many of the distinctions between secular and sacred space have been erased by our culture. Rather than creating alternative spaces, spaces that challenge the heart and raise the mind to the contemplation of beauty, many churches are designed to make people feel as comfortable as possible by reproducing that which is most familiar to them—corporate board rooms, theaters, businesses, shopping malls, concert halls, and educational facilities. These spaces may be efficient, non-threatening, familiar, and neutral, but they 41. Coniaris, My Daily Orthodox Prayer Book, 118.

141

Being the Church

are not beautiful, at least not according to the patterns established in the Scriptures. Ecclesial beauty is not simply a matter of individual perception, but of a deliberate implementation of divine standards. We sit in rows of soft velvety theater seats arranged in rows that approximate the spaces used to view movies, indifferent, unmoved, waiting to be entertained. Where are the Christian symbols? Why have business suits replaced the radiant vestments of the priests? Why is it that we disrespectfully enter these spaces dressed for sport, replete with coffee? Even in churches that have preserved some of this, beauty is diluted by rows of folding chairs, ranks of electric lights, wall space empty of holy images, the absence of candles and incense. Perhaps it is our contemporary indifference to the beautification of ecclesial space that is the most telling. We don’t seem to care what the space is like and we justify our attitudes by saying that we can worship God in any place, and instead of bringing gifts of “gold, silver, and bronze; blue, purple, and scarlet thread, fine linen, and goats’ hair; ram skins dyed red, badger skins, and acacia wood; oil for the light, and spices for the anointing oil and for the sweet incense; onyx stones, and stones to be set in the ephod and in the breastplate” (Exod 25:3–7), we expect the almighty King of all creation to dwell with us in sanitized, secular, everyday spaces that make us feel comfortable. Do we even expect to see beauty and the glory in the sanctuary? Certainly the beauty of Christ comes to us today in the Eucharist. There we have that spacial manifestation of the real presence of God, and this presence of God is embedded in and beautifies the many layers of spacial dimensions that make up the Church, the body of Christ. One layer is that of the holy gifts of bread and wine, given by the people, returned, and sanctified by the presence of the living Christ. The fact that we take these elements seriously is institutionalized in the role of the presider (pastor, priest), who is the only one who can call down the Spirit upon these gifts. Now, if we take that presence seriously, then we should think in terms of a sanctification of the other elements or layers of the eucharistic event. Here there are some distinct parallels to the Old Testament via the early Church. The holy vessels/altar, those implements that contain and bear the gifts, take on special beauty through their contact with the holy mysteries. As such, they should be handled with care and respect, and not just by anyone. Cleaning the holy vessels is not done in the kitchen sink, but by the priest at a special place of preparation: the alter, which is not

142

Ecclesial Beauty

touched, not used to support weary servers, but is a sacred space touched only when necessary, and only by those so ordained. The sanctuary itself, that space around the altar which is set apart for the celebration of the holy mysteries, is not to become a thoroughfare for those seeking a shortcut, or the promenade of the curious, but rather a space reserved for those administering the sacrament, a place of quiet awe. Listen again to the vesting prayer from the liturgy: “I will compass thine altar, O Lord, that I may hear the voice of thy praise, and declare all thy wonders. Lord, I have loved the beauty of thine house, and the place of the abode of thy glory.”42 The nave of the Church, the place of the faithful who have gathered to worship, should also be a place of quiet preparation for the service, a place of repentance, a place of anticipation and not a meeting hall, gossip forum, or the home of a pep rally. The faithful themselves, in whom Christ dwells, are the place of the Spirit. It is after all the gathering of the faithful for the purpose of worship and Eucharist that constitutes the Church. The music we use must also beautify, that is, be fitting of sacred space. In an insightful article Peter Jeffery traces four basic models of music used throughout Christian history. One is called “song” and is based on the music’s ability to evoke feelings. “Thus beauty according to this ideal has to do with the music’s capacity to evoke the feelings that the composer is representing.”43 In the early Church this led to the many christological hymns that “emerged as a way to shape and model the right kinds of feelings, by using text that presented orthodox teaching about the identity of Christ.”44 This was a combination of emotion and teaching. A second form is that of the “chant,” where the words are considered the most important element, not the music itself. The music was simply there to help render the text more intelligible. At its best, the beauty of chant is perceived “when the music mediates a more effective, even affective, engagement with the words.”45 A third model was that of “harmonia,” a fitting together of various musical elements (polyphony) into a unified whole. “The message we get is one of a profound, inexpressible unity, undivided by time or space, beyond words and beyond the ordinary spectrum of human feelings.”46 42.  Orthodox Church in America, Priest’s Service Book, 102. 43.  Jeffery, “Prophesy Mixed with Melody,” 89. 44. Ibid., 114–15. 45. Ibid., 90. 46. Ibid.

143

Being the Church

Finally, there is what Jeffery calls “dance,” in which we treat the “rhythm as the paramount element.” This often involves the movement of the body and may be seen in the various dances of liturgical services.47 Unfortunately, certain kinds of music can arouse the wrong kinds of feelings. It is important for the Church to avoid the mistake of simply importing into the Church the various forms and instruments of secular music, especially when they are associated with immorality. Clement of Alexandria warned that music could influence behavior. Let all erotic songs be far removed from here; let hymns to God be our songs. . . . Now temperated harmonies are to be admitted, but the pliant [slack] harmonies be driven as far as possible from our robust minds. These through their sinuous strains instruct one in weakness . . . grave and temperate melodies bid farewell to the arrogance of drunkenness . . . .48

As for the use of instruments, Clement complained that the irregular movements of the auloi, psalteries, choruses, dances, Egyptian clappers and other such playthings become altogether uncouth, especially when joined by beating cymbals and tympana and accompanied by noisy instruments of deception. Such a symposium, it seems to me, becomes nothing but a theater of drunkenness. As the Apostle would have it: “Let us then cast off the works of darkness . . . .”49

The danger here is, of course, that many contemporary Christians engage in the ideal of song but remove the element of teaching and think that music is nothing but the expression of feeling. This explains their unrelenting efforts to promote trivial, sentimental pop songs as “liturgical renewal.”50 It seems to me that respect for the beauty and holiness of sacred space requires us to carefully evaluate the music (and its sources) that we use in the Church. We should also consider the way in which we use images. In our image-saturated society we have a tendency to assimilate almost any image, 47.  For example, in the Orthodox marriage and ordination services, the clergy and the candidates move around the altar or a small table in what is called the “Dance of Isaiah.” 48.  Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus, 2.4, quoted in Jeffery, “Prophesy Mixed with Melody,” 98. 49.  Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus, 2.4, quoted in ibid., 97. 50. Ibid., 94.

144

Ecclesial Beauty

including the holy images of the Eastern Church. We have everything from video clips, wall posters, and multimedia presentations in our churches. Even icons are being incorporated into many Protestant settings. We have to ask: What we do with them? What place have we given them? Do we give them their proper place as a bridge between the earthly and the heavenly? Are they considered sacred and holy? Do we venerate, kiss, and light candles in front of them, and respect them as mediators of the realities, the prototypes they depict? Do we use them to help us pray? The acceptance of the ancient images is of course a good thing, unless we divorce them from the ontological status and function assigned to them for their work in sacred space. Have we, as Carole Baker suggests, democratized them as domesticated decorations?51 Perhaps it would do us good to remember that The face of Christ is the human face of God. The Holy Spirit rests on him and reveals to us absolute Beauty, a divine-human Beauty, that no art can properly and fully make visible. Only the icon can suggest such Beauty by means of the Taboric light.52

If we acknowledge the sanctity of these spaces, what should our response be? How should we treat these sacred places? First, it should be observed that we of the contemporary moment are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to thinking in these terms. According to Charles Taylor, there has been a monumental shift in thinking since the Reformation/Enlightenment, a shift he calls desacralization.53 As he sees it, we have gradually flattened the hierarchies of space into the one plane of common space, leaving us bereft of holy objects, altars, and sanctuaries. I have noticed with some alarm the casual (disrespectful) way in which the spaces in our own chapel at the divinity school are treated. I see people leaning on the Communion table as if it were just another piece of office furniture, thus transforming the high place (apse) into a utility space amidst jokes and laughter. We live in a world in which almost nothing is sacred, and this attitude has bled over into the church. What I find so tragic about these developments is that it is precisely in the two areas that indicate the becoming, the potential of humanity, that humankind has mounted its assault against God. Temporality and spatiality are the markers of becoming, a movement of human beings toward their 51.  Baker, “Florensky and the Matter of Icons,” 177. 52. Ibid. I have described my own understanding of the use of icons in Rommen, Come and See, 114–23. 53. Taylor, Secular Age, 208–9.

145

Being the Church

divinely appointed destiny, deification. And it is to remind us of that end that both time and space are (were) hierarchical—the suspension of ordinary time during the liturgy in order to give us a foretaste of the coming kingdom, and the real presence of the risen Lord in the holy gifts on the altar to emphasize the hope of personal communion between the human and the divine. By destroying the hierarchies, we have transformed the divinely inspired becoming of humanity into a mere existence. By removing sacred space, we have condemned ourselves to an endless circling of life rather than movement toward our entelechy. How, then, can we rediscover the importance of a divine hierarchy of space? By reintroducing and reemphasizing our becoming in Christ. By bringing back the idea of movement within the sometimes static view we take of our worship spaces. Let us develop a dynamic understanding of our architecture. The Church is a place where something happens, where the Spirit moves. The Communion table/altar is not a familiar object that we simply use uniformly. No, it repeatedly hosts the divine presence and each time it comes with new force to further our becoming. It is, like the sanctuary and the nave, a dynamic, living receptacle of divine, personal presence. If we reinstate a spacial hierarchy of the sacred, we will be able to view the Church as a place set apart for the special manifestation of God. If it is indeed a sacred space, then it has its own hierarchy, something that should be reveled in, respected, and carefully practiced. Let us also develop a spirit of expectancy. We need to teach our people that when they enter the Church they have a right to expect something to happen, something to move them. If this were a place of divine manifestation, how sad it would be if we came away having experienced nothing. Just as important is a sense of personal holiness. If you are going to enter into a sacred space, you will, like Moses before the burning bush, have to remove the dirty shoes of your own sinfulness. At the very least, you will have to repent as you enter the space, appealing, as did the publican, to God’s mercy. Without this personal investment, I fear that we blind ourselves to what God is doing in the Church. Finally, we need to find ways of preserving a sense of mystery. Our callous disregard for our own inability to understand divinity robs us of the awe, the tremendum that should overcome us in the presence of God. He is not our playmate, our private intellectual hobby. He is the Lord of the universe, Creator of all that there is; he is our Savior and our Redeemer. I am quite convinced that if we would cultivate an environment of sacredness in 146

Ecclesial Beauty

our Churches, no matter how simple they might be, we would never enter a Church the same way again. On Doctrine (Creed)

In a way, this is simply a question of the place that the creed is given in the Church. For some of us this is almost automatic since the creed is included in all of our divine liturgies and our daily prayer rules. We have it memorized and can sing it, chant it, and relay it to others. I recognize that this can lead to a kind of rote familiarity that tends to deaden the intensity of faith. However, the upside of this is that the familiar is also ingrained in our minds and hearts to such an extent that the belief structure of the Church becomes second nature. By constantly repeating the creed, we affirm and reaffirm the content of our faith and it becomes a firm unwavering aspect of our life in Christ. We know what we believe. Unfortunately, many Christian groups have abandoned the recitation of the creed during their services. I am not sure why this has happened, but it seems to be in keeping with a trend that abandons all of the ancient text, including the Lord’s Prayer, in favor of a running stream-of-consciousness commentary by the person in charge. I asked several friends who attend Protestant services if they remember saying the creed. None of them did. I recently attended a service in a Protestant free church. During the service there was no mention of the Lord’s Prayer and no recitation of the creed. However, during the Scripture reading, the “pastor” interspersed his own comments and observations as he read the text. It was difficult to know what was Scripture and what was his personal opinion. In fact, I think this is the crux of the matter. Our own opinions have supplanted the age-old statements of the Church. This amounts to a denial of authority or of a standard against which our faith can be measured. In the case of the church just mentioned, it was more important to the “pastor” to repeat the principles of John Calvin than it was to recite the very words of our Lord. No longer do we know what we all have believed in all places, from all time. So if the beauty of the true Church is reflected in its doctrinal universality, then it seems important to ask when and under what circumstances we are exposed to the creed. To the extent that the creed is neglected in public worship, that group is no longer catholic, no longer beautiful. I suppose I should also mention the fact that some churches, even if they still recite the creed, have altered it by adding certain phrases (filioque), 147

Being the Church

“improving” the translation, or merging it with other texts. This, of course, is often given as the reason for the great schism that separated the Eastern and Western Churches in 1054. Not only do these practices violate the intentions of the creed’s formulators, it also changes the doctrinal baseline. This is not the place to debate this difficult issue, but it seems apparent that a change in the creed was not to be entertained. As the fathers instructed, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicaea. But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.54

So again I have to ask, to what extent has the modern indifference to the creed contributed to the deflowering of the Church? In any case, this is not something countable. However, we can quite easily assess the place of the creed in our services and quite easily reinstate it to its proper place of honor and beauty. On Diversity

Human diversity is an undeniable fact of our existence. In an ideal world we would expect the Church to perfectly reflect that diversity in its own body. But it is not quite that simple. In some cases the Church is a reflection of local demographics. For example, our small Church is located in an area rich with universities. As a result, our membership is made up largely of academics. This is not necessarily a bad thing, since there are other factors that characterize our makeup. We could look at the ethnic constitution of our parish and see that we have Ukrainians, Russians, Serbians, Georgians, Egyptians, Scandinavians, Americans, Asians, and African Americans. This, I think is evidence of the unifying, transcultural nature of the Church. We could also look at our social diversity and take note of the fact that we have 45 percent academics, 10 percent business people, 30 percent medical people, 10 percent administrative workers, and 5 percent blue-collar 54.  Council of Ephesus, Canons, Canon 7.

148

Ecclesial Beauty

employees. This too shows the diversity-embracing power of the Church. Another way to look at this would be to explore the age structure of the Church. In our case we have the following. Age

Male

Total

Percent

Female

Total

Percent

70 & Over

4

11

36.36%

7

11

63.64%

60–69

12

20

60.00%

8

20

40.00%

50–59

12

31

38.71%

19

31

61.29%

40–49

6

12

5.00%

6

12

50.00%

30–39

11

34

32.35%

23

34

67.65%

20–29

4

7

57.14%

3

7

42.86%

10–19

15

23

65.22%

8

23

34.78%

Under 10

10

23

43.48%

13

23

56.52%

TOTAL

74

161

45.96%

87

161

54.04%

Table 5: Age Structure

So in a relatively small parish we have an impressive display of diversity. All of us are united in Christ into one body reflecting the world around us. This is definitively part of what makes us beautiful. However, I am not suggesting that we view diversity as the goal of some strategy through which we “target” specific peoples or groups. We did not deliberately seek to “achieve” the diversity in our parish. It is, rather, the natural and inevitable outcome of the Church being the Church wherever it happens to be, open to anyone drawn to the presence and beauty of Christ. It is the catholicity of the Church that is energized by the Holy Spirit, and not some strategy, that brings beauty-in-diversity. On Healing

The Church has, for good reasons, been called the hospital of the soul. It is the place were the broken and dying sinner can come for restoration, for healing. It is a dispensary for the cure for the disease of sin. The words of St. John Chrysostom are helpful at this point. Using an Old Testament picture, he compares the church to a former prostitute. For the miracle of the bridegroom is that he took a prostitute and made a virgin. St. John imagines the following dialogue. Since a

149

Being the Church

year they were produced in Paradise, how did you fall from there? She answers that the devil cast me out of Paradise. And Christ goes on: you were produced in Paradise, and he cast you out; behold I produce you myself, I bear you. Now you no longer have a body and have nothing to fear from the devil. The prostitute replies: but I am a sinner and unclean. And Christ says aworrying I am a physician. I know my own tool, I know how it was earthenware and was broken. I shall remake it by the bath of rebirth and consigned it to the fire.55

So the Church is a place of healing for every conceivable malady. It has everything the sinner needs, without exception. It is the comprehensibility of the Church’s offer to sinners that sets it apart. There is nothing that one can bring to the Church that is above its—Christ’s—ability to heal. This, then, is the beauty of the Church, it’s glory. Orthodox people view the Church as a spiritual hospital, a clinic, a hospice, a therapeutic center, and a fitness center—all combined in one. The aim of the treatment is to provide spiritual cure, maintain wellness for its patients (faithful members) and lead them to eternal life.56

Here the sick in soul can come to the great physician, Christ. Christ referred to Himself as a physician: “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick” (Matt 9:12)—the sick being the sinners. This is part of the beauty of the Church, its glory, and so we pray, “All-holy Trinity, have mercy on us. Lord, cleanse us from our sins. Master, pardon our transgressions. Holy One, look upon and heal our infirmities for thy name’s sake.”57 The Church, then, is a place of healing, a place of restoration. Do we see this happening in our parishes?

55. Hierotheos, Mind of the Orthodox Church, 56–57. 56. Hatzidakis, “Church Is a Therapeutic Center.” 57.  Orthodox Church in America, Priest’s Service Book, 96.

150

5 Ecclesial Integrity On the Apostolicity of the Church

The Church is not a human organization, it is not a list of dead people. It is the Divine-human Organism. And we must constantly struggle to be and to remain living members of the Church to experience, not intellectually, but spiritually, the unity, catholicity, and apostolicity of the Church.1

On the Meaning of Integrity

I

come now to the last of the transcendental attributes of the Church, namely, its integrity or truth. To make such a claim for an object is to affirm that it truly is what it purports to be. So here we are concerned here only with the truth that is attributed to reality, to things themselves: ontological, metaphysical, transcendental truth. As Coffey points out, There is nothing abstruse or far-fetched about the use of the terms “true” and “truth” as equivalent to “real” and “reality.” We speak of “true” gold, a “true” friend, a “veritable” hero, etc. Now what do we mean by thus ascribing truth to a thing? We mean that it corresponds to a mental type or ideal. We call a liquid true wine or real 1. Hierotheos, Mind of the Orthodox Church, 64.

151

Being the Church

wine, for instance, when it verifies in itself the definition we have formed of the nature of wine. Hence, whenever we apply the terms “true” or “truth” to a thing we shall find that we are considering that thing not absolutely and in itself but in reference to an idea in our minds: we do not say of a thing simply that it is true, we say that it is truly such or such a thing, i.e. that it is really of a certain nature already conceived by our minds.2

Ontological truth, then, is an essential conformity of reality, as an object of thought, with a mental type or ideal of the intellect. It is true if it is what the mental type leads us to expect it to be. These definitions of reality are normally derived from “actually experienced reality by abstraction, comparison, generalization, and reflection on the data of its experience.”3 The problem with this is, of course, that we all process experience individually and arrive at diverse, even contradictory images of reality. The reason for this is that the human mind does not create reality or the truth of an object; it merely apprehends it. Any reality can create in the mind an adequate mental representation of itself. When it does, the conformity between that image and the real object constitutes, at least, the potential for ontological truth. However, the human mind can mistakenly apply that image to reality and thus misunderstand its true nature. Thus, the possibility exists of claiming that an object is something when it is in fact not so. So how are we to adjudicate between accurate and errant claims to truth? How can we speak of the truth of an object? “How can this ontological truth be one for all men, or immutable and necessary?”4 One way to do this would be to posit the establishment of the truth of reality prior to the human intellect’s giving ascent to it. In this case, the human mind would be accessing another mind and accepting its judgment. This antecedent judgment is an eternal function of God as a necessary being, a first and self-existent intelligence. Realizing, then, that God has created all things according to Infinite Wisdom, we can see that the essences of things are imitations of exemplar ideas in the Divine Mind. On the Divine Mind they depend essentially for their reality and intelligibility. It is because all created realities, including the human mind itself, are adumbrations of the Divine Essence, that they are intelligible to 2. Coffey, Ontology, 100. 3. Ibid., 101. 4. Ibid.

152

Ecclesial Integrity

the human mind. Thus we see that in the ontological order, in the order of real gradation and dependence among things, as distinct from the order of human experience, the reason why reality has ontological truth for the human mind is because it is antecedently and essentially in accord with the Divine Mind from which it derives its intelligibility.5

Even though this amounts to a second-order knowing, it can still be ontological truth for our minds. The reason why our minds can apprehend their essences, why we can have any true knowledge about them, is in fact because both our minds and all things else, being expressions of the Divine Essence, are in essential conformity with the Divine Intellect.6

So the truthfulness of all real objects has already been established by God and we simply need to submit to and conform to those divine images. Yet, because human beings have chosen to assert their own mental independence, they often ignore, misapply, or distort the truth mediated by the Creator. So for this second-order recognition of the truth of reality to yield actual ontological truth within human experience, there will have to be some mechanism(s) through which these divine images can offset human independence and be mediated to the mind. According to Orthodox teaching on the spiritual life, this can and does happen when the individual mind (nous) has overcome the sinful passions and become attuned to or properly contingent upon God. If this state of passionlessness (apathia) is achieved, the individuals enters a stage of development known as illumination. This illumination facilitates the contemplation of God in nature and is the first step on the way to a contemplation of the Divine. Rooted in the idea that each entity of creation contains its own logos, the ideas of God, this inner meaning makes possible a partial understanding of God’s wisdom. As St. Maximus puts it, “things hide divine logoi in them as so many rays of the supreme Logos. He who discovers them in things ascends on their thread to the knowledge of God and this knowledge must anticipate his direct knowledge.”7 This knowledge is a symbolic knowledge, the world being a symbol of the reality that created it, the symbol making the reality visible. In the West we generally ac5. Ibid., 102–3. 6. Ibid., 103. 7.  Quoted in Staniloae, Orthodox Spirituality, 205.

153

Being the Church

cess these meanings by means of rational, discursive, deductive reasoning. However, the mind clouded by the passions cannot see the truth, thus the need for the preparation of purification. Once that is done, the virtuous mind can come to the truth. By contemplating nature, we come to discern the logoi, sometimes as a direct gift of God, sometimes as the result of long practice. We see what is truly good, beautiful, and true not subjectively, but with true objectivity. With increasing sharpness we are able to discern the true meaning of things (and people), both good and evil, and the relationships between them; we gain a spiritual vision of creation.8 The Apostolicity of the Church

So, with respect to reality at large, we have the ability to tap into the divine source of judgments or mental images and apprehend the truth of any real object. What then of the Church? How can we say with confidence that what we today call a Church is truly a Church? What mechanism allows us to affirm the integrity of the contemporary Church? As I pointed out above, we can see the true Church present in the charismatically structured eucharistic assembly of believers. But there is another, more encompassing idea that can help us, namely, apostolicity or the apostolic tradition of the Church. In fact, apostolicity is the mark by which the Church of today is recognized as identical with the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon the apostles. It is of great importance because it is the surest indication of the true Church of Christ, it is most easily examined, and it virtually contains the other three marks, namely, unity, sanctity, and catholicity.9 The root idea is expressed by St. Paul when he states that the true Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets with Christ as the chief cornerstone (Eph 2:20; Heb 3:1). Everything that the Church is and that it practices was handed down by Christ to his apostles. In the simplest terms, then, a Church is truly the Church if it conforms to the mental image created by the content of faith deposited by Christ into the hearts and minds of the apostles. This initial deposit is not a static collection of doctrines and rubrics, but rather a living, dynamic baseline for engaging the world under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We see this at work in the Jerusalem council (Acts 15). The decisions of the council were added to the apostolic deposit. So we have the possibility of becoming, of 8. Rommen, Come and See, 157–58. 9.  O’Reilly, “Apostolicity.”

154

Ecclesial Integrity

development, but not as an alteration of the baseline. Anything that is added will conform to the original deposit, be accepted by the Church universal, and thus be added to the catholic consciousness of the Church. Universally approved, the findings of the councils, for example, supplemented but did not change the original apostolic content. They, together with the original deposit, became the consciousness or mind of the Church actualized in any given moment. The development of the New Testament is another good example of this kind of growth. Immediately after Pentecost the Church was up and running, engaging in its mission, gathering for worship, teaching apostolic doctrine, governing their own affairs. In other words, we already have a set of certain doctrines, creeds, liturgical practices, which originate from our Lord himself and which the Apostles felt obliged to expound, present, interpret and preserve, not dead pronouncements and ritualistic ceremonials, but as their own living experience and of the whole Church as well.10

They knew how to do all of this, yet all without a written canon of scripture, as is pointed out by several of the fathers. St. John of Damascus, for example, relates information on the Dormition of the Theotokos, admitting that it is not referred to in Scripture, but received from ancient and true tradition.11 St. Basil the Great mentions a whole series of liturgical practices (making the sign of the cross, facing east while praying, triple immersion at baptism) that were handed down by tradition but are not contained in the Scriptures.12 So some of what the early Church had was 10. Bebis, Mind of the Fathers, 7. 11.  John of Damascus, “Homily 1 on the Dormition of the Theotokos.” 12.  “Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us “in a mystery” by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force.  And these no one will gainsay;—no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in

155

Being the Church

not given to them in written form (John 21:25). However, as the Church spread the need for standardization became evident, and the documents of the New Testament were developed and, of course, vetted against the initial apostolic deposit of faith, which was not that difficult since the authors were all part of that original group of apostles. As the canon was accepted by the Church universal, the Scriptures became part of apostolic tradition, not a separate source of authority, and they were interpreted within the context of that tradition. For this reason, “there is general agreement today to speak of a unity of the sources of revelation by bringing together Scripture and tradition as two expressions of one and the same thing, that is to say, the event of God’s revealing Himself to His world in Christ.”13 And so it was that this developing image, this “continuous extension into history of the incarnation of the Son of God,”14 was passed on to succeeding generations and used as a dynamic, living standard for evaluating the truth of individual groups as they encountered the world. This pattern of tradition’s transmission is already evident in the New Testament era (1 Cor 11:23, 15:3; 2 Tim 2:2). “The apostle hands down the doctrine of faith to the churches where it must be kept unharmed through the succession and continuance (diadoche) of individuals entrusted with the guarding of the doctrine.”15 This doctrine of apostolic continuance was then taken up and consistently practiced as the Church expanded throughout the world. Tertullian reports that after Christ committed the faith to his disciples, he sent them forth. After first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judaea, and founding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching.  Moreover, we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation?” Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 27.66. 13. Nissiotis, “Unity of Scripture and Tradition,” 184. 14. Bebis, Mind of the Fathers, 21. 15. Afanasiev, Church of the Holy Spirit, 242.

156

Ecclesial Integrity

city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore, the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality—privileges, which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery.16

So we see that the “nucleus of this doctrine was located in the Church from the very beginning, while the shape of this doctrine naturally changed throughout the history of its development.”17 Indeed, we can trace the development of the office of bishop from its roots in the presider/president of the eucharistic assembly, the ordination of presbyters, the emergence of senior presbyters, and on to the high priesthood of the bishop.18 As they apply to succession, these developments were expressed in terms of two paradigms. According to the first, the substance of the doctrine concerning succession is that the ministry of the presbyter-bishops, ordained by the apostles or other persons who had necessary authority for this, does not cease in a local church but continues without interruption. The second paradigm is distinct from the first in arguing that apostles not only ordained first bishops, but also commended to them their own ministry, preserved in the Church through the unbroken chain of bishops.19

From this it can be seen that the idea of apostolic continuance has three distinct components. One is the apostolicity of the mission itself, that is, the historical continuity created by an unbroken succession of individuals from the time of the apostles to the present. Another is the apostolicity 16. Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics, 20. 17. Afanasiev, Church of the Holy Spirit, 241. 18.  This is not the place for a detailed exploration of these developments. For that see ibid., 133–254. 19. Ibid., 244.

157

Being the Church

of doctrine guaranteed by that continuity. And finally, there is an apostolicity of practice. Apostolicity of Mission

By this I mean that the Church is one body and possesses the mission conferred by Christ upon the apostles, which is transmitted by them and “their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth.”20 Irenaeus insists that we must obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth.21

This mission has both a material and a formal aspect.22 The material succession is found in the actual unbroken chain of individuals who legitimately execute the mission of the Church. This actual succession was so important to the Church that, from its earliest days, it kept detailed records or registers of these apostolic successors. Tertullian, in challenging the heretics, appeals to just such documents. Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the 20.  O’Reilly, “Apostolicity.” 21. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.26. 22.  O’Reilly, “Apostolicity.”

158

Ecclesial Integrity

same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed.23

The formal aspect of the mission has to do with authority. “It consists in the legitimate transmission of the ministerial power conferred by Christ upon His Apostles. No one can give a power which he does not possess.”24 For that reason, it is only those who have received this authority from this unbroken chain of command who can legitimately engage in the mission of the Church. Separating oneself from this formal authority or simply claiming it for oneself breaks the succession, destroys apostolicity, and nullifies the authority. This is exactly what was done by the early heretics and schismatics, and it is precisely why the fathers denied their right to call themselves Churches. Note St. Cyprian’s rejection of Novatianus, who “is not in the Church, nor can he be considered a bishop, because, in contempt of Apostolic tradition, he was ordained by himself without succeeding anyone.”25 It is also interesting to note that throughout the history of Christianity’s expansion, missionaries have always been sent or authorized by the Church. We see this clearly in the medieval period, with St. Augustine being sent by Pope Gregory to Britain around 596,26 St. Boniface being given “full authority to preach the Gospel to the heathens in Germany to the right of the Rhine” in 719,27 Sts. Cyril and Methodius being sent to the Muslims and later to the Slavs on the authority of a synod called by the emperor,28 and St. Ansgar, who, after being sent to Rome to secure permission for his mission to Scandinavia, received confirmation around 846. The Pope confirmed this, not only by an authoritative decree, but also by the gift of the pallium, in accordance with the custom of his predecessors, and he appointed him as his legate for the time being amongst all the neighboring races of the Swedes and the Danes, also the Slavs and the other races that inhabited the regions of the

23. Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics, 32. 24.  O’Reilly, “Apostolicity.” 25. Ep. 76, “Ad Magnum,” as cited in ibid. 26.  Clifford, “St. Augustine of Canterbury.” 27.  Mershman, “St. Boniface.” 28. Schütz, Die Lehre der Slawen Kyrill und Method, 34.

159

Being the Church

north so that he might share authority with Ebo the Archbishop of Rheims, to whom he had before entrusted the same office.29

This pattern, still maintained by the Church,30 was not broken until the advent of non-ecclesially commissioned missionaries, such as Moravians who went to Greenland in 1733.31 The tendency toward self-authentication was exacerbated during the Protestant Reformation, during which many groups simply discounted the need for such legitimization or, if they still felt the need for authenticity, simply assumed the authority to reinitiate succession. Take as an example the Lutheran theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg. He responds to the Catholic idea that the Reformation Churches lost the succession of bishops by insisting that Luther maintained the idea of episcopal succession of office. He also wrote in his 1531 Commentary on Galatians that to the end of the world this was the generalis post Apostólos vocatio in orbe terrarum, to which he added neque est mutanda (WA 40/1, 59, 23f). The apostles had called their disciples to be their successors, as Paul called Timothy and Titus. These, in turn, called Bishops as their own successors, and that has been continued into our own time. According to Luther’s judgment, this structure was not to be changed. That did not rule out the possibility that in times of need—when there is no Bishop who can supply the communities with preachers of the gospel—another way would have to be found, as Luther wrote in 1523: “The example of Titus and Timothy does not apply here, rather one has to call someone out of the community, and God determines whether he is confirmed by Titus or not” (WA 11, 414, 30ff). According to Luther, however, this is not the normal means of investing an individual with an office in the church—the normative mode remains ordination in episcopal succession. That is a mark of the unity of the church in the teaching of the apostles and must be preserved.”32 29. Rimbert, Life of Ansgar, Apostle of the North. 30. Take as an example the recent Orthodox mission in Albania commissioned by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who appointed a missionary, Archbishop Anastasios, to oversee the task. See Veronis, Go Forth: Stories of Mission and Resurrection in Albania. 31.  While there may have been other Protestant missionary endeavors before this, the Moravians seem to have initiated this kind of churchless mission. See “Moravians in Greenland.” 32.  Pannenberg, “Ecumenical Tasks in Relationship to the Roman Catholic Church,” 168.

160

Ecclesial Integrity

This kind of thinking continues unabated into our own day. We see it in the rise in the number of completely independent churches who maintain no connection to history, who ordain themselves, who self-authenticate, and who, without any authority whatsoever, claim to be Church. In a report to the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, one researcher noted that It has become clear in recent decades that the expectation of loyalty and the fair exchange of goods and services between individual churches and the regional or national denominational offices are being eroded. This is certainly true for the megachurches in these denominations but it is also true for smaller, but resource rich, churches. It is likely that many congregations of any size, not just megachurches, no matter how much they value the denominational tradition and resources, still want as much autonomy as they can get.  With the continuing diversification of theological positions in denominations, the niche elective parochialism and de facto congregationalism of churches of all polity types the denominational hold on churches is waning.33

Typical of this denial of apostolic continuance is the answer given by one Reformed writer. According to him, “the Reformers realized that there was no need for apostolic successors. No, the need was simply to have the apostles themselves with us through their inspired and inerrant teaching. And that is what we have in the New Testament.”34 This seems to be the argument of many Protestants. One writer states: Today, apostolic doctrine is contained in the New Testament, which is the completion and fulfillment of the Old Testament. Therefore that church is apostolic which is wholly characterized by the truth taught by the apostles in sacred Scripture, and Christian ministers are successors to the apostles if they preach apostolic doctrine.35

So here there is a tendency to substitute the text of the New Testament, which arose within the context of apostolic tradition, for the material succession itself. While this option may be attractive to those who reject apostolic continuance, it does little to address the real issue of a personal, individual character of apostolicity. We cannot simply transfer from individual intellectual, communal, and spiritual content of the whole 33.  Thumma and Lummis, “Growing up and Leaving Home.” 34.  Orthodox Presbyterian Church, “Apostolic Succession and Protestantism.” 35.  Stewart, “Apostolicity of the Church.”

161

Being the Church

community of faith to the limited written expressions of some of that content. The successors to the apostles were not texts, but individuals, persons authorized to preserve and transmit every aspect of life in Christ. I assume that contemporary procedures for ordination, which can be quite rigorous, are actually echoes of this concern, this formal principle of apostolicity. Many Christian groups seem to be quite concerned about legitimizing or authenticating those people that serve in their churches. Those who are to preside over ministry are expected to meet certain educational and moral requirements and are to be authorized by the church for service. An interesting example of this continued interest in ecclesial integrity can be found in American black churches. It illustrates the seriousness that many Christians ascribe to the validity and integrity of hierarchical succession. The Joint College of African American Pentecostal Bishops, founded in 1993, is “designed to aid leaders and reformations in enhancing establishing, or enhancing, episcopal integrity.”36 Their website includes much of the traditional language of the Eastern Church, such as references to an episcopate, a primate, and a metropolitan. Some of what they seek to do is legitimize the consecration of bishops and facilitate their training. Without question, the core value of the Joint College is maintaining a standard of excellence for all those who hold the title and operate in an Episcopal office. This standard includes a fierce devotion to the integrity of the presentation of God’s Word, the administration and care of the Lord’s Church, the equitable oversight of ecclesiastical leadership and an unwavering commitment to moral integrity for all concerned.37

Perhaps this also helps us account for others who, at least to some degree, feel the need for apostolic connectedness and incorporate the term apostolic into their names and purpose statements. There is, for example a Praise Temple Apostolic Faith Church, Inc.;38 a Macedonia Aggressive Apostolic Church, which has self-consecrated a bishop;39 and one curiously named after an apostle, St. James Apostolic Church, also with its own self-appointed bishop.40 In the case of this latter group, their philosophy of 36. http://collegeofbishops.org/about. 37. Ibid. 38. http://www.ptafcnc.org. 39. http://www.macedoniaaggressiveapostolicchurch.org. 40. http://www.stjamesapostolicchurch.org.

162

Ecclesial Integrity

ministry simply assumes an apostolic authority to proclaim the truth and even hasten the day of Christ’s return. It is “the duty of the church, the body of Christ, to go into the dying world and help folks un-mess themselves. The sooner we do this, the sooner the Lord can put in His appearance, and bring back everlasting righteousness.”41 There is also a whole denomination called the Apostolic Church, which traces its origins back to the 1904–1905 Welsh revival and seeks to be faithful to first-century Christianity in its faith, practices, and government.42 Many seem to recognize the importance of apostolic continuance but appear to pursue it without the slightest regard for the actual succession of apostles.43 Apostolicity of Doctrine

Of course, the whole point of apostolic succession was to guarantee the purity of doctrine and practice. The true Church believed and practiced exactly the same things that Christ handed down to the apostles. St. Basil the Great links the two ideas. The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of “sound doctrine” 1 Tim 1:10 is to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ by leveling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it. So like the debtors—of course bona fide debtors—they clamor for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers. But we will not slacken in our defense of the truth.44

So it was the purity of doctrine that lay at the heart of the concern for apostolicity. The heretics had taken great liberties with the truth and it is on this very point that Tertullian challenges them. Again, it is the apostles and the deposit of faith that are decisive. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its 41. http://www.stjamesapostolicchurch.org/site/pom.asp?sec_id=140000945. 42. Turnbull, What God Hath Wrought, 11. 43.  On an encouraging note, there are a number of examples of Christian groups recognizing their lack of apostolicity and seeking to restore it by reconciling with the Church. The Methodist Church of England is, for example, considering reunification with the Anglican Church from which it split. See Beckford, “General Synod: Methodists Likely to Merge with Church of England.” 44.  Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 9.

163

Being the Church

author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner.45

During the course of the first few centuries, heretics and schismatics alike challenged these doctrines. In order to answer them, the Church, following the ancient practice (Acts 15), called councils in order to formulate the true, apostolic teaching of the Church. These dogmatic assertions, such as the Creed, thus became an integral part of apostolic tradition. They were not a separate source of authority, but rather a supplemental explanation and extension of, fully in sync with, and vetted against the original deposit of faith given to the apostles. So the declarations of the councils were affirmed by the Church universal and became an aspect of the catholic consciousness of the Church. The basic principle behind these developments is sketched out by Tertullian. From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for “no man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.” Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach—that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now, what that was which they preached—in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them—can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both vivâ voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those moulds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from 45. Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics, 31.

164

Ecclesial Integrity

falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth.46

Apostolicity of Practice

The early Church was, of course, more than its doctrines. It was very much a reflection of the apostolic practices delivered and preserved, that is, its order, sacraments, and liturgical structure. So just what were these practices? What did the Church look like? What are we to emulate today? In addition to the New Testament, we have a number of early (second-century) writings that claim to contain the instructions of the apostles themselves. These works include the Didache: The Teaching of the Twelve, the Apostolic Canons, the Apostolic Constitutions, and Hippolytus’s Apostolic Tradition. In this latter work we have a description of the liturgical functions of the Church during the first three centuries. According to Hippolytus, the Holy Spirit has guided the Church and will enable it to transmit and maintain this holy tradition. It is interesting to note that even the titles of these works appeal to the authority of the holy apostles. Taken together, they give us a very clear picture of what the apostolic Church was like, how it was governed, how it worshiped, and how it practiced the sacraments. So what we are talking about here is what St. Athenasius called “the very Tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the very beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers preserved. Upon this the Church is founded.”47 So what is truly Church? It is a group of believers that mirrors the ancient mental image, that dynamic body of truth, that apostolic tradition, that mind of the Church. Perhaps we would then have to agree with St. John of Kronstadt. Is that religion purified that has rejected the Sacrament of Orders and the other sacraments, excepting Baptism and Holy Communion, which last, however, is not valid; has rejected the veneration of the saints, of their relics, icons, fasting, monasticism, and prayers for the departed? Is this the faith of the Gospel? Is it the Church of Christ and the Apostolic Church? No; it is a self-made Church, constituted by the will of men, under the influence of human 46. Ibid., 21. 47.  Athanasius, as cited in Bebis, Mind of the Fathers, 17.

165

Being the Church

passions and pleasing human passions; it is “the truth in unrighteousness”; it is the perverted Gospel of Christ; it is the perversion or turning away of Christ’s people “unto another Gospel,” of which the Apostle said: “But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” It is not a Church, but a soul-destroying dissection of the body of Christ. And thus the veneration of icons is natural, righteous, pleasing to God, and profitable.48

So is this simply an appeal to antiquity? Are things normative for today just because they were done and said in the past? Not at all! My approach to tradition is rather an expression of the Orthodox understanding of history itself. What now is Tradition according to this concept? Tradition is not simply history but a sequence of consistent acts of the Christian community on a stable basis which helps the individual to become a member of a new fellowship, which goes beyond simple historical and natural criteria of nation, race or language. This is the church Tradition as taxis and akoloutheia, order consistent with continuity. Tradition is not therefore what people accuse the Orthodox Tradition of being, a sterile past which predicts our present existence, obliging us to conform to past forms. But it is a decision in the present of the individual who stands in communion with the other believers, from whom he receives faith and with whom he makes the decision regarding the future, but based on the experience of the past. Tradition is always a movement towards the future but on the basis of the past which sustains and fills it. Tradition is an agreement of the individual with the Christian community facing the future, but an agreement which is to be found already in the past. Scripture is the link always present, as it was in the beginning of this movement forward with the first announcement of the Gospel. It is in this way that dynamic Tradition transforms the written word of God into an uninterrupted stream of life. It is not a normative codex or Patristic wisdom to which we must always refer, but it is a living process of interpretation of the Bible by the People of God gathered in one historical family and on its way towards its final destiny. We are not creating Tradition and we are not receiving a perfected Tradition, but we are creating out of the Tradition our new life, and what we receive we hand on to the coming generations as a new beginning.49 48.  John of Kronstadt, My Life in Christ, 397–98. 49. Nissiotis, “Unity of Scripture and Tradition,” 194–95.

166

Ecclesial Integrity

Apostolicity, then, is rooted in the past, in the event of Christ transferring the faith to the apostles. It is a dynamic living extension of Christ himself in that it is a reiteration, a reactualization of that event for the contemporary moment. It is the cumulative, collective consciousness or mind of the Church. It is the memory that the Church has of that which has been handed down even to us today. At the Eucharist we don’t simply look back and remember the events of the passion; we live into them in a real and dynamic actualization of those events that makes us eyewitnesses of and true participants in the passion. Similarly, the initial act of tradition, Christ passing things on to the apostles, is continually reiterated, repeatedly reactualized for our benefit. And it is this body of truth developed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that gives us a picture of what the Church has been and what it is to continue to be. As Metropolitan of Nafpaktos Hierotheos points out, “the view which prevails today—that we need to change our terminology, to transfer the content of the Revelation to new terms and to our own verbal schemes is characterized as neopatristic theology—is dangerous.”50 And so he uses the words of St. John of Damascus to teach us what our attitude should be. We accept all those things, which have been handed down by the Law and the Prophets and the Apostles and the Evangelists. We know and revere them, and over and above these things we seek nothing else. .  .  . Let us be content with these things and let us abide in them, and let us not step over the ancient bounds or pass beyond the divine tradition.51

The Accidental Indicators of Ecclesial Integrity

If we are to assume that a particular group is truly a Church, then we should find evidence of its integrity, that is, its apostolicity. Where in the life of the Church will apostolicity and truth make itself visible? To identify those indicators, I propose a thoroughgoing comparison between the group in question and the apostolic record. Obviously this type of evaluation does not lend itself to charts and graphs. There is nothing here to count or enumerate. Nevertheless, the results of such a comparison will reveal much about the health and the truth of the group being studied. Such a review 50. Hierotheos, Mind of the Orthodox Church, 63. 51. Ibid., 62.

167

Being the Church

could be done in three broad areas of Church life: its mission, doctrine, and practice. Mission

The first thing we should notice in a truly apostolic Church is a deliberately cultivated sense of historical perspective. Everything that the Church does should contribute to an understanding that we are part of something much larger, something that has flowed down through history from the time of the apostles. This would be evident in the fact that the faithful are made aware that the liturgy celebrated is that of either St. John Chrysostom or St. Basil, both having their roots in the third century. During the liturgy we also use prayers and hymns that have come down to us through the centuries. Rather than simply reciting or singing them, we are often made aware of their authors/composers and the circumstances under which they worked. This communicates to the faithful the fact that we are not alone, nor the first to use this material. Another indication of this historical awareness is the daily, and in particular the Sunday commemorations of the saints. So on a given Sunday we might, for example, be remembering the fathers of the first six ecumenical councils and their contribution to the tradition of the Church. I should also mention the recitation of the creed, which ties us to this great stream of history, the tradition we have received and that we seek to preserve. A second area of apostolicity of mission is that of ecclesial authority or legitimacy. By what authority does the local group, its staff, do the work of the Church? Do they have the mandate necessary for the legitimate celebration of the sacraments, preaching, and outreach? Are these staff members legitimate successors of the apostles or simply hired help? The only practical way to determine this is to ask Tertullian’s age-old question, “Who is your bishop?” For it is only in the material succession of the legitimate practitioners of the Church that its veracity can be established. Here we will find any number of variations. Obviously, if there is no hierarchy at all, there can be no succession and no true Church. Indeed, many groups have dropped all pretense of hierarchy and have simply done away with the idea of a bishop. Some will justify this position by pointing to the crooks and scoundrels who have sometimes been bishops. But we must not forget that the Church has the authority to depose errant clergy in order to preserve the purity of succession. Other groups have kept the office of bishop but dropped the 168

Ecclesial Integrity

need for apostolic legitimization to appoint them. So, who consecrated these “bishops?” Was it another group of legitimate bishops, as required by the Apostolic Canons?52 Or was it a self-appointment to the office without any succession or authority? There is no such thing as a self-consecrated bishop or a bishop appointed locally by an independent group. In some cases, I suppose that there is actually a succession of sorts. I have often seen the pictures of congregational founders and their successors hanging in the offices of many churches. This is no doubt an expression of the deep-seated desire for historical continuity and belonging. Yet, this is hardly apostolic in its scope; it only reaches back a few generations. These founders are part of a very recently reinitiated series of individuals and they give us a sense of stability. Imagine how much greater that confidence would be if we could trace our origins back to the apostles themselves. Doctrine

A second area of comparison is that of doctrine. The simplest place to start is the summary statement of the Creed. Many groups have rejected or gone beyond the Creed and established their own doctrinal context. But surely conformity to apostolic teaching will be required of any Church claiming to be part of that tradition. It would be tedious to review all the specific doctrinal statements of a given group. However, most contemporary associations post short statements of faith and practice on their websites. So let’s take just one example of claimed apostolic doctrine. According to the website of the Anointed Fellowship Praise Church, apostolic doctrine teaches that “The Holy Ghost is not a third person in the Godhead, but rather the spirit of God, the spirit of the resurrected Christ. The Holy Ghost is a Comforter that dwells in the hearts and lives of every believer (St. John 14:16–26).”53 In spite of the claim to apostolicity, it is immediately apparent that this idea violates the Creed, which proclaims belief in “the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.” The statement by the Anointed Fellowship Praise Church stands in stark contrast to the affirmations of the first ecumenical council that declare God to be of one essence and three persons. In addition, this errant understand52.  “Let a bishop be ordained by two or three bishops.” Percival, trans., Apostolic Canons. 53. http://www.afpchurch.org/about_the_ministry.htm.

169

Being the Church

ing stands at odds with the writings of the fathers, in particular St. Basil the Great, who went to great lengths to affirm the personhood of the Holy Spirit.54 So, by beginning with the Creed, then the dogmatic affirmations of the councils, and the larger context of the writings of the fathers, we have a workable framework for comparing almost any doctrine held by any group. Of course, some contemporary doctrines are of much more recent origin. How, for example, would we compare the teaching of double predestination, developed by some of the Reformers, with the apostolic tradition? Starting with Romans 8:28, some in the Protestant, particularly the Calvinist, world have developed the idea that God has chosen some and not others. That is, he has “predestined the salvation or damnation of each individual without taking any of their deeds into account, making man’s free will irrelevant to salvation.”55 The Creed does not speak directly to this point, so what about the affirmations of the councils? Indeed, councils were convened during the seventeenth century to establish the Orthodox doctrine vis-à-vis the Protestant teachings, like the Councils of Jassi (1662) and Jerusalem (1672). The synod held at Jerusalem condemned the Eastern patriarch Cyril Lucaris for his heretical Calvinist theories. Among other things it concluded that to affirm that the Divine Will is thus solely and without cause the author of their condemnation, what greater calumny can be fixed upon God? and what greater injury and blasphemy can be offered to the Most High. For that the Deity is not tempted with evils, and that He equally willeth the salvation of all, since there is no respect of persons with Him, we do know; and that for those who through their own wicked choice, and their impenitent heart, have become vessels of dishonor, there is, as is just, decreed condemnation, we do confess. But of eternal punishment, of cruelty, of pitilessness, and of inhumanity, we never, never say God is the author, who telleth us that there is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth. Far be it from us, while we have our senses, thus to believe, or to think; and we do subject to an eternal anathema those who say and think such things, and esteem them to be worse than any infidels.56

54.  Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit. 55.  This statement is part of a comment about the 1672 Council of Jerusalem on the website of the “Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece.” http://genuineorthodoxchurch. com/jerusalem_1672.htm. 56. Robertson, trans., Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, 116.

170

Ecclesial Integrity

The decrees of the synod were signed by all five patriarchates, giving it the status of a Pan-Orthodox Council. As such, its findings and affirmations were accepted by the Church universal and thus became part of the catholic consciousness of the Church, that is, part of apostolic tradition. This pronouncement was, of course, based upon and in complete agreement with the way in which the Church had always understood the idea of predestination. But how did the fathers understand this passage? Today we have a number of resources that can help us answer that question. There are, first of all, the homilies of the various fathers, such as those of St. John Chrysostom.57 We also have the Catena Aurea, a patristic commentary on the Gospels.58 In addition we have the recently released Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture.59 In any case, we are in a position to check on the patristic interpretation of specific passages. In the case of Romans 8, one of the fathers, St. Diodore, shows us how this passage is to be understood. This text does not take away our free will. It uses the word foreknew before predestination. Now it is clear that foreknowledge does not by itself impose any particular kind of behavior. What is said here would be clearer if we started from the end and worked backwards. Whom did God glorify? Those whom he justified. Whom did he predestine? Those whom he foreknew, who were called according to his plan, i.e., who demonstrated that they were worthy to be called by his plan and made conformable to Christ.60

While there is certainly much more to say about this particular doctrine, the synod itself, and its history, the approach outlined here gives us a structure within which we can test the apostolicity of any given doctrine and thus the integrity of the group that holds it. Practice

Finally, our comparison should include a look at the various practices, rites, ceremonies, and services, that is, the practical implementation of the life of the Church. If a group claims that it is apostolic in practice, then a comparison with what we know of the early Church should reveal a high degree of conformity. I am, of course, not speaking of some kind of uniformity. 57.  John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans. 58.  Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea. 59.  Oden, gen. ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. 60. Ibid., New Testament, 6:227.

171

Being the Church

There are going to be differences from epoch to epoch and from culture to culture. However, if we can identify broad areas of practice that have been universally Christian, we can, in fact, measure current apostolicity of practice. It would be tedious and certainly incomplete for me to try to address all Christian practice. However, when St. Basil the Great was speaking of this very issue, he gave a few examples of practices that had come down to them through apostolic tradition. We can use his examples to illustrate the kinds of things I am thinking about and how to affirm their apostolicity. St. Basil points us to the practices of making the sign of the cross, prayers of the liturgy, and specific aspects of the baptismal service.61 He seems to have isolated three areas of practice, namely, personal piety, worship, and the sacraments. Personal Piety

In the case of personal piety, we could, of course, point to a whole host of practices, including the rule of prayer, daily devotions, reading the Scriptures and other spiritual writings, almsgiving, and so on. But one of the most widespread practices of Christians—making of the sign of the cross—will serve to illustrate my point. Even though this seems almost universal, there are many today who find it offensive or have simply dropped the practice altogether. While there is not a lot of information on its history, the practice has, as St. Basil says, come down to us through apostolic tradition. We see this clearly reflected in the witness of the fathers. From this we can also see how the practice developed over time. In the fourth century Tertullian documented the practice saying that at every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at the table, when we light the lamps, on the couch, on the seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign.62

During that same century St. Cyril of Jerusalem admonished Christians not to

61.  Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 27.66. See footnote 12 above for the St. Basil’s text. 62.  De Corona 3, as quoted in Andreopoulos, Sign of the Cross, 13.

172

Ecclesial Integrity

be ashamed to confess the Crucified. Let the cross as our seal, be boldly made with our fingers upon our brow and on all occasions; over the bread we eat, over the cups we drink; in our comings and in our goings; before sleep; on lying down and rising up; when we are on our way, and when we are still. It is a powerful safeguard; it is without price, for the sake of the poor; without toil, because of the sick; for it is a grace from God, a badge of the faithful, and a terror to the devils; for “he displayed them openly, leading them away in triumph by force of it.” For when they see the Cross, they are reminded of the Crucified; they fear him who has “smashed the heads of the dragons.” Despise not the seal as a free gift, but rather for this reason honor your benefactor all the more.63

At some point, the purpose of making the sign seems to have shifted from an association with the name of Christ to the cross of Christ. Augustine asks, what else is the sign of Christ but the cross of Christ? For unless that sign be applied, whether it be to the foreheads of believers, or to the very water out of which they are regenerated, or to the oil with which they receive the anointing chrism, or to the sacrifice that nourishes them, none of them is properly administered.64

Later on, during the eighth century, St. John of Damascus, who lived under Muslim rule, highlights the idea of identification. “[The cross] was given to us as a sign on the forehead, just as circumcision was given to Israel. For by it we the faithful are recognized and we separate ourselves from the unfaithful.”65 Another change involved the move from a more-or-less private cross on the forehead to a large cross inscribed on the whole body. St. Peter of Damascus (eighth century) describes it thus: holy Fathers have handed down to us the meaning of this holy sign, in order to refute heretics and unbelievers. The two fingers and the one hand then, represent the crucified Lord Jesus Christ, whom we profess as having two natures in one person. The right hand recalls his unlimited might and his sitting at the right hand of the Father. And one begins to trace it from above because of his descent from the heavens to us on earth. Furthermore, the movement of the hand from the right side to the left drives away the enemies and indicates that the Lord through his invincible might 63.  Catechetical Lecture 13, 36, as quoted in ibid., 14. 64.  Tractatus CXVIII on John 5, as quoted in ibid., 21. 65.  Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4.9.27, as quoted in ibid., 23.

173

Being the Church

has conquered the devil who is on the left, a powerless and gloomy being.66

In any case, making the sign of the cross is certainly one expression of personal piety that developed within apostolic tradition. In light of the evidence for it and its nearly universal practice, one has to wonder how some Christians can cut themselves off from so obvious an expression of apostolicity and still consider themselves apostolic in practice. Worship

Worship is another area that deserves our scrutiny. To what extent have we maintained the apostolic traditions in the mode and content of our worship? First, I would ask whether or not the group in question is celebrating the divine liturgy in some form or another. Today we have the great advantage of having several outstanding books that trace the history of the liturgy67 and others that contain the text, rubrics, and variations of the service. This raises the question as to whether or not there is one right way to worship. There is no doubt room for discussion here, however, if the eucharistic assembly is what constitutes the Church, and if the Eucharist has always been part of a liturgy, then why would we want to abandon that practice? What is gained? Can we possibly improve on what has been the practice of the Church for all these generations? If what is called worship is completely divorced from historical patterns, if it is something that is invented or reinvented each week, if it is based more on contemporary culturalisms than tradition, then it cannot be considered apostolic. And if our worship is not apostolic, then our group is not truly Church. Again, we will have to consider the possibility of varying degrees of conformity. Perhaps much of our difficulty stems from dissatisfaction with the past, an unwillingness to accept and preserve what has been handed down to us. This rage to innovate seems to drive much of what is called contemporary worship. Here I am not only speaking of the various secular components (worship band music, multimedia presentations, etc.) that have been incorporated in our services. Rather, I am thinking of the very content of the service, the prayers and texts that are used. Some time ago I led a study group at a major seminary. The group was part of a class on 66.  On the Differences between Thoughts and Provocations, as quoted in ibid., 25. 67. Dix, Shape of the Liturgy.

174

Ecclesial Integrity

worship and was tasked with learning how to pray in various settings. We used a workbook to guide our discussions.68 On several occasions, we were presented with one facet of the divine liturgy and asked to rewrite the text. For example, one lesson focused on the great prayer of thanksgiving that comes just before the epiklesis. What I found interesting was that the traditional prayer of St. John Chrysostom was, at least in part, preserved in the various worship manuals69 being used by the class. So it was obviously a known quantity. Nevertheless, we were asked to rewrite the prayer. When I asked if we had the right or the authority to simply change the text, we fell into a rather animated but inconclusive exchange. It seems that my Enlightenment-informed students assumed that there were no restraints on their creativity and freedom, that they could do just as good a job as did the saints. In any case, the new and modern was superior to the (too) long and complicated text of the original. But if we set ourselves apart from the apostles and their tradition, we are set adrift in a sea of competing desires (for the contemporary) and urges (for the upbeat and rhythmic) and will undoubtedly lose our bearings and transform worship into a self-gratifying exercise, our creation. The Sacraments

The administration of the sacraments is another area for comparison. Most groups that call themselves Christian practice at least two of the traditional mysteries. Baptism may be the most universal, so I’ll use that as an example here. St. Basil points to several distinctly apostolic features of the baptismal right. One is the practice of blessing the water and the oil that are used during the service. This blessing involves the saying of several prayers, making the sign of the cross in the water with one’s fingers, and again with the oil. Another feature of this traditional baptism are the prayers of exorcism that are said over the candidate. They speak powerfully of the Church’s belief in the personification of evil. Another aspect is the complete immersion of the candidate into the water, and that three times in the name of the Trinity. So these are just a few of the characteristics of an apostolic baptism. So the comparison that I am advocating would ask each group to measure its own 68. Old, Leading in Prayer. 69. United Church of England and Ireland, Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments; United Methodist Church (U.S.), and Methodist Church (U.S.), Book of Worship for Church and Home.

175

Being the Church

practice (sprinkling, pouring, no oil, no blessing, no exorcism) to what has been handed down to us. If our practice is wanting in some area, then we need to bring it back in line with tradition. If we cannot or refuse to do that, we call into question the ecclesial integrity, the apostolic practice, of the group. All of this raises the interesting question of what I will call a selective use of apostolic tradition. As we have seen, most Christian groups make use of at least some elements of tradition and reject others. So how do the results of our comparison with apostolic tradition affect the ecclesial status of a particular group? In the case of the eucharistic assembly and the material aspect of succession, we can definitively say their presence and practice constitutes the Church. However, many of the other aspects of tradition do not have that defining character. For example, a group might completely neglect the Creed, but still maintain Trinitarian doctrine. Would this mean that they could still be considered apostolic? Another group might follow tradition and baptize by immersion in the name of the Trinity, but ignore the instructions on blessing the waters and the use of oil. Does this, by itself, mean that it is not a Church, or perhaps that it is only partially Church? Not at all! In the case of those aspects of tradition that do not by themselves constitute the Church, we should rather speak in terms of a relative distance from or the degree of conformity to the ideal of apostolic tradition. In that case we would easily recognize that a Methodist church, with its semiliturgical, semi-sacramental, hierarchical structure and orthodox doctrine would be much closer to that ideal than a nondenominational group that is non-liturgical, non-sacramental, baptizes in the name of Jesus only, has heterodox doctrine, no hierarchy, and no relationship with other churches. What our comparison with apostolicity means is that every Church and every church can determine in what areas it needs to grow, that is, move toward the ideal. A more fully apostolic Church such as an Orthodox Church might, as we saw above, find it necessary to improve its use of and conformity to tradition in the area of confession. Likewise, a Methodist church that celebrates Eucharist once a month could consider moving to a weekly practice. In other words, this comparison would give every Christian group the opportunity to conform more closely to the tradition handed down by Christ to his apostles and through them to us.

176

Conclusions

I

began this project with fond memories of having taught courses on Church growth and having long worked in the Church for its growth. I remember doing so with great vigor and intensity, since I was (am) so totally committed to the Church and its well-being. In spite of my efforts, I often saw discrepancies between what the Church should be and the actual condition of the many groups that call themselves churches. I counted, I analyzed, and I made charts, and strategized accordingly. But often there were no discernible results. I now believe that this discrepancy arose either because these groups were not truly Church or because they had drifted so far away from the apostolic ideal as to obscure their churchly status. I pointed out that God himself, who is present during the weekly gathering of the faithful for the celebration of the Eucharist, constitutes Church. As such, the very existence, the being of a Church is a gift of God’s presence and grace and not the result of any particular actions taken by human beings. For that reason, Church is primarily about being something rather than doing or achieving something. So the growth of the Church is not reflected in ever-increasing numbers, dollars, and activities, but rather in steadily growing conformity to the divine ideal. Naturally, I became skeptical of all the counting that was being done and wondered if simply counting growth rates, membership, and giving could tell us anything substantive about the state or the being of the Church. Do declining numbers indicate that the group is not a Church, or vice versa? Must a group be increasing numerically in order to be considered growing? I gradually came to the conclusion that the being of the Church, no matter the external circumstances, is the most important aspect of ecclesial health. So I set out to develop an ontology of ecclesial being, an understanding of just what we mean when we say that the Church exists. In the process of doing that I discovered that every entity that really exists has at least four marks or, as I called them, 177

Being the Church

four transcendental attributes: unity, goodness, beauty, and integrity. In addition, I saw that the Church bears these attributes in a unique way, as what I called tropes. In other words, only the Church can exist this way, as oneness, goodness, beauty, and integrity. That, in turn, reminded me of the four traditional, creedal marks of the Church, and it seemed to me that I could map the transcendental attributes onto the nota ecclesia and have oneness, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity serve as a matrix, as a way of evaluating ecclesial status and maturity. With this framework I can look at any group that claims to be a Church and analyze for these four marks and determine if it is indeed a Church and/or how close it is to the apostolically given divine ideal of the Church. So I began with the idea of unity or oneness and found that according to the New Testament the oneness of the Church is expressed in the eucharistic assembly and the charismatic structure of ministry. The collective, the priesthood of all believers, jointly celebrates or concelebrates the Eucharist under the leadership of a presider and thus becomes one body. This oneness is also reflected in the unified co-ministry of the faithful, that is, their active participation in the charismatic structure of ministry. I then discovered that some aspects of this attribute could in fact be counted. The frequency with which the Eucharist is celebrated, for example, clearly shows how important it is in the life of a particular group. If the celebration of the Eucharist is neglected in any way, then we can conclude that the group is not a Church or, at the very least, that it has drifted away from the apostolic ideal. This is also true of the individual believer, and I suggested that we could count the number of people who do not participate in the Eucharist or ministry and think about what that might mean for them and the ecclesial status and maturity of the Church. Next I looked at the idea of goodness and holiness and determined that the Church is inherently good in that it provides everything the individual believer needs in order to move toward the perfection of holiness, absolute goodness. Here I also saw that there are several aspects of goodness that can be counted. These include the degree to which the sacraments and the tools of tradition, such as the Scriptures, services, and icons, are made available to the faithful. I also suggested that each individual can measure his or her own level of holiness using the Pauline pattern of the fruits of the Spirit. The importance of this is as an indicator that the group is actually moving its members toward holiness, that is, that it is itself good and holy. If it is, then

178

Conclusions

we can conclude that the group is a Church and is seeking to conform itself to the apostolic ideal. Then I moved on to the mark of catholicity or beauty. Here I note that the Church is beautiful because it exists in a sacred space created by the faithful as a dwelling place for God, whose beauty is reflected there. We saw how this involves the temple itself, the music, and the icons, all of which contribute to the beauty of that sacred space. So by participating in this divine beauty, by being involved with God in and through his beauty filling the sacred spaces that we have set aside, through the music, through the icons, we are ourselves glorified or beautified by Christ. Here there is, of course, little to count. But we saw that we can take a measure of the degree to which the group makes an effort to establish the beauty of the sacred dwelling place of God and thus conform to the apostolic ideal. Finally, I spoke of the integrity or apostolicity of the Church. How do we know that a contemporary group of Christians constitutes the same Church that Christ handed down to his apostles? We know that the faith that has been handed down from Christ to the apostles to us is what we call the catholic consciousness of the Church, the mind of the Church. It is the community’s memory of how things are done, what is believed, what is practiced in the Church. Taking the various sources of tradition, we can compare ourselves with those standards and ascertain the degree to which we conform. Again, there is nothing much to count, but the comparison can show us the degree to which we have drifted away from the apostolic ideal or are growing toward it. So I conclude that being the Church, that is, being one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, is far more important than what many have called doing or managing church. Of course, there are things to do and there are a few things that we can count. To be the Church we will have to establish the regularity of the eucharistic assembly, actively participating in the Spiritgiven charismatic structure of ministry. If we do this, we are the one true Church. The growth and maturation of the Church can then be seen in the degree to which we facilitate and participate in its goodness and beauty, and conform to the apostolic tradition handed down to us. These are the things of genuine Church growth and, if measured and assessed, they give us significant understanding of the ecclesial status and health of any group of people that may wish to call itself a Church.

179

Bibliography Afanasiev, Nikolai. The Church of the Holy Spirit. Translated by Vitaly Permiakov, edited by Michael Plekon. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007. ———. The Lord’s Supper. YMCA, 1952. http://anglicanorthodoxmission.homestead. com/RussianTheology.html. Afonsky, Gregory. Christ and the Church in Orthodox Teaching and Tradition. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001. Andreopoulos, Andreas. The Sign of the Cross. Brewster, MA: Paraclete, 2006. Athanasius, Saint, Patriarch of Alexandria. On the Incarnation. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/ athanasius/incarnation.html. Augustine, Saint, Bishop of Hippo. Confessions. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/ confess.html. ———. Expositions on the Book of Psalms. Vol. 8 of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series 1, edited by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977–86. http://www.ccel.org/ ccel/schaff/npnf108.html. Baker, Carole. “Florensky and the Matter of Icons: Some Considerations for Modern Christian Culture.” In Beauty and the Beautiful in Eastern Christian Culture, edited by Natalia Ermolaev, 177–94. Sophia Studies in Orthodox Theology. New York: Theotokos, 2012. Barna, George. Marketing the Church. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1988. Basil the Great, Saint, Bishop of Caesarea. On the Holy Spirit. In vol. 8 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952–57. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.html. ———. On the Human Condition. Translated by Nonna Verna Harrison. Popular Patristics Series. Kindle ed. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2005. Bebis, George S. The Mind of the Fathers. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox, 1994. Beckford, Martin. “General Synod: Methodists Likely to Merge with Church of England.” Telegraph, February 12, 2010. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7216357/ General-Synod-Methodists-likely-to-merge-with-Church-of-England.html. Bobrinskoy, Boris. The Mystery of the Church: A Course in Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2012. Bulgakov, Sergei Nikolaevich. The Bride of the Lamb. Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans, 2002. Campbell, Keith. Abstract Particulars. Philosophical Theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1990.

181

Bibliography Cavarnos, Constantine. Spiritual Beauty. Belmont, MA: Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 1996. Clifford, Cornelius. “St. Augustine of Canterbury.” In vol. 2 of The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton, 1907. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02081a.htm. Coffey, Peter. Ontology, or, The Theory of Being. Kindle ed. London: Longmans, Green, 1918. Coniaris, Anthony. My Daily Orthodox Prayer Book. Minneapolis: Light and Light, 2001. Council of Ephesus (Third Ecumenical Council). The Canons of the Two Hundred Holy and Blessed Fathers Who Met at Ephesus. In vol. 14 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952–57. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.x.html. Council of Sardica. The Canons of the Council of Sardica. In vol. 14 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952–57. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.iii.iv.i.html. Cyprian, Saint, Bishop of Carthage. Treatise 1: On the Unity of the Church. In vol. 5 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, revised by A. Cleveland Coxe. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969–73. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/ schaff/anf05.iv.v.i.html. Cyril, Saint, Bishop of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures. Translated by Edwin Hamilton Gifford. In vol. 7 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952–57. http://www.ccel.org/ ccel/schaff/npnf207.ii.i.html. De Cruz, Helen. “Why Humans Can Count Large Quantities Accurately.” Philosophica 74 (2004) 63–83. Dexter, Samuel. Our Fathers God, the Hope of Posterity: Some Serious Thoughts on the Foundation, Rise and Growth of the Settlements in New England; with a View to the Edification of the Present, and the Instruction, and Admonition of Future Generations. Reprint. Boston: Thomas Fleet, 1796. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/Sabin?af =RN&ae=CY101812324&srchtp=a&ste=14&locID=duke_perkins. Dix, Gregory. The Shape of the Liturgy. London: Dacre, 1945. Downey, Michael. Understanding Christian Spirituality. New York: Paulist, 1997. Dragas, George. “Orthodox Ecclesiology in Outline.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 3 (Fall 1981) 185–92. Eldredge, John. The Utter Relief of Holiness: How God’s Goodness Frees Us from Everything That Plagues Us. New York: FaithWords, 2013. Ellas, John W. Measuring Church Growth. A Research-Based Tool for Evaluating and Planning. Houston: Center for Church Growth, 1997. Ermolaev, Natalia, ed. Beauty and the Beautiful in Eastern Christian Culture. Papers of the Sophia Institute Academic Conference, New York, December 2011. Sophia Institute Studies in Orthodox Theology 6. New York: Theotokos, 2012. Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea. Church History. Translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. In vol. 1 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952–57. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/ npnf201.iii.i.html. ———. The Life of Constantine. Translated by Ernest Cushing Richardson. In vol. 1 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952–57. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201. iv.i.html.

182

Bibliography Fairbairn, Donald. Eastern Orthodoxy through Western Eyes. 1st ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Florensky, P. A. The Pillar and Ground of the Truth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997. The Great Book of Needs: Expanded and Supplemented. 4 vols. South Canaan, PA: St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 1998. Gregory of Nazianzus, Saint. Orations. Translated by Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow. In vol. 7 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952–57. http://www.ccel. org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iii.html. Gregory of Nyssa, Saint. Against Eunomius. In vol. 5 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952–57. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.viii.i.i.html. ———. On the Soul and the Resurrection. In vol. 5 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952– 57. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.x.iii.i.html. ———. On Virginity. In vol. 5 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952–57. http://www.ccel. org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.ix.ii.ii.i.html. Gregory Palamas, Saint. Topics of Natural and Theological Science and on the Moral and Ascetic Life: One Hundred and Fifty Texts. In vol. 4 of The Philokalia: The Complete Text, compiled by Nicodemus and Makarios, translated and edited by G. E. H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, and Kallistos Ware, 346–417. London: Faber and Faber, 1995. Grout, Donald J., and Claude V. Palisca. A History of Western Music. 4th ed. New York: Norton, 1988. Hapgood, Isabel. Service Book of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church. 7th ed. Englewood, NJ: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, 1996. Hardon, John. The Modern Catholic Dictionary: An Abridged and Updated Edition of Modern Catholic Dictionary. New York: Image, 2013. Hart, David Bentley. “Beauty, Being, Kenosis.” In Beauty and the Beautiful in Eastern Christian Culture, edited by Natalia Ermolaev, 19–31. Sophia Institute Studies in Orthodox Theology 6. New York: Theotokos, 2012. Hatzidakis, Emmanuel. “The Church Is a Therapeutic Center.” Over the Rooftops (blog), Orthodox Witness, November 5, 2012. http://orthodoxwitness.org/the-church-is-atherapeutic-center/. Hendryx, John. “The Visible vs. the Invisible Church.” Reformation Theology, May 24, 2006. http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/05/the_visible_vs_the_ invisible_c.php. Hierotheos, Vlachos. The Mind of the Orthodox Church. Translated by Esther Williams. Levadia, Greece: Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, 1998. “The Holy Sacrament of Ordination to the Priesthood.” Greek Orthodox Diocese of America. https://www.goarch.org/en/-/the-holy-sacrament-of-ordination-to-thepriesthood. Hopko, Thomas. Doctrine. The Orthodox Faith 1. New York: Orthodox Church in America, Department of Religious Education, 1981. http://oca.org/orthodoxy/theorthodox-faith/doctrine/the-symbol-of-faith/nicene-creed.

183

Bibliography ———. Worship. The Orthodox Faith 2. New York: Orthodox Church in America, Department of Religious Education, 1981. http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodoxfaith/worship/the-sacraments/the-sacraments. Ignatius, Saint, Bishop of Antioch. Epistle to the Ephesians. In vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, revised by Kevin Knight. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature, 1885. http://www. newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm. ———. Epistle to the Smyrnaeans. In vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, revised by Kevin Knight. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature, 1885. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm. Irenaeus, Saint, Bishop of Lyon. Against Heresies. In vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, revised by Kevin Knight. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature, 1885. http://www.newadvent.org/ fathers/0103.htm. Jeffery, Peter. “Prophesy Mixed with Melody.” In Beauty and the Beautiful in Eastern Christian Culture, edited by Natalia Ermolaev, 87–115. Sophia Institute Studies in Orthodox Theology 6. New York: Theotokos, 2012. John Chrysostom, Saint. The Divine Liturgy According to St. John Chrysostom. New York: Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of America, 1967. ———. Homilies on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans. In vol. 11 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, edited by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977–86. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vii.html. ———. Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John. In vol. 14 of The Nicene and PostNicene Fathers, Series 1, edited by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977–86. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf114.iv.i.html. ———. Treatise Concerning the Christian Priesthood. Translated by W. R. W. Stephens. In vol. 9 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, edited by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977–86. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf109.iv.i.html. John of Damascus, Saint. An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. Translated by S. D. F. Salmond. In vol. 9 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952–57. http://www.ccel.org/ ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.i.xiii.html. ———. “Homily 1 on the Dormition of the Theotokos.” Monachos. http://www.monachos. net/content/patristics/patristictexts/680-john-damascus-homily-1-dormition. ———. On Holy Images. Translated by Mary H. Allies. London: Thomas Baker, 1898. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/damascus/icons.i.iv.html. John of Kronstadt, Saint. My Life in Christ. Translated by E. E. Goulaeff. London: Cassell, 1897. ———. Spiritual Counsels of Father John Kronstadt: Select Passages from My Life in Christ. Edited by W. Jardine Grisbrooke. London: James Clarke, 1967. John the Monk, Saint. Idiomela. In Hymns of the Holy Eastern Church, translated and edited by John Brownlie. Alexander Gardner, 1902. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/ brownlie/easternhymns.h32.html. Justin Martyr. First Apology. In vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, revised by A. Cleveland Coxe. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969–73. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.html. Keating, Daniel A. Deification and Grace. Introductions to Catholic Doctrine. Naples, FL: Sapientia, 2007.

184

Bibliography Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. 4th ed. London: Black, 1968. Khomiakov, Alexy Stepanovich. The Church Is One. London: Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 1968. Kuhlmann, Meinard. “What Is Real?” Scientific American 309.2 (2013) 40–47. Küng, Hans. The Church. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1968. Lazor, Paul. Baptism. New York: Department of Religious Education, Orthodox Church in America, 1972. Leithart, Peter J. Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010. Lewis, C. S. “On the Reading of Old Books.” In God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, edited by Walter Hooper, 217–25. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. Lightfoot, J. B., trans. The Apostolic Fathers. Moody Classics. Chicago: Moody, 2009. Limouris, Gennadios. Orthodox Visions of Ecumenism. Geneva: WCC, 1994. Louth, Andrew. “The Cosmic Vision of Saint Maximos the Confessor.” In In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God’s Presence in a Scientific World, edited by Philip Clayton and Arthur Peacocke, 184–98. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Lowe, E. J. The Four-Category Ontology: A Metaphysical Foundation for Natural Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Macarius the Egyptian, Saint. Spiritual Homilies. Edited by Daniel R. Jennings. Patristics in English. http://www.seanmultimedia.com/Pie_Macarius_Egyptian_Homilies_1-5. html. Maximus the Confessor, Saint. Four Hundred Texts on Love. In vol. 2 of The Philokalia: The Complete Text, compiled by Nicodemus and Makarios, translated and edited by G. E. H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, and Kallistos Ware, 53–114. Boston: Faber and Faber, 1979. McGavran, Donald A. The Bridges of God: A Study in the Strategy of Missions. London: World Dominion, 1955. ———. “How to Evaluate Missions.” HIS 27 (1967) 22–27. ———. “Still Building the Bridges of God.” Global Church Growth 21 (1984) 390–91. ———. Understanding Church Growth. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. McGavran, Donald A., and Win Arn. How to Grow a Church. Glendale, CA: Regal, 1973. McIntosh, Gary. Biblical Church Growth: How You Can Work with God to Build a Faithful Church. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003. Mershman, Francis. “St. Boniface.” In vol. 2 of The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton, 1907. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02656a.htm. Methodius of Olympus, Saint. To Those Who Are Ashamed of the Cross of Christ. Translated by William R. Clark. In vol. 6 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, revised by A. Cleveland Coxe. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969–73. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf06.xi.x.ii.html. Meyendorff, John. The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. New York: Orthodox Church in America, Department of Religious Education, 2009. “Moravians in Greenland.” Moravian Archives. http://www.moravianchurcharchives.org/ thismonth/08 jan greenland.pdf. “Morning Prayers.” http://www.orthodox.net/services/morning-prayers.html. Nasr, Constantine. The Bible in the Liturgy. Oklahoma City: Theosis, 1988. Neamţu, Mihail. “Revisiting Orthodoxy and Nationalism.” Pro Ecclesia 15.2 (Spring 2006) 153–60.

185

Bibliography Nellas, Panayiotis. Deification in Christ: Orthodox Perspectives on the Nature of the Human Person. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997. Nissiotis, Nikos A. “Unity of Scripture and Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox Contribution to the Prolegomena of Hermeneutics.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 11.2 (1966) 183–208. Oden, Thomas C., gen. ed. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Old Testament, 15 vols; New Testament, 12 vols. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001–11. Old, Hughes Oliphant. Leading in Prayer: A Workbook for Ministers. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Oleksa, Michael. Alaskan Missionary Spirituality. 2nd ed. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2010. O’Reilly, T. “Apostolicity.” In vol. 1 of The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton, 1907. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm. Orthodox Church in America. “Equal of the Apostles Great Prince Vladimir, in Holy Baptism Basil, the Enlightener of the Russian Land.” Lives of the Saints, July 15, 2013. https://oca.org/saints/lives/2013/07/15/102031-equal-of-the-apostles-great-princevladimir-in-holy-baptism-basi. ———. The Priest’s Service Book. Translated by Archbishop Dmitri. Dallas: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of the South, 2003. Orthodox Presbyterian Church. “Apostolic Succession and Protestantism.” http://www. opc.org/qa.html?question_id=341. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. “Ecumenical Tasks in Relationship to the Roman Catholic Church.” Pro Ecclesia 15.2 (2006) 161–71. Patrick, Saint. “Lorica of Saint Patrick.” EWTN. http://www.ewtn.com/devotionals/ prayers/patrick.htm. Percival, Henry R., trans. The Apostolic Canons. St. Pachomius Orthodox Library, 1998. http://www.voskrese.info/spl/aposcanon.html. Pew Research Center. “America’s Changing Religious Landscape.” May 12, 2015. http:// www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/. Plato. The Republic, Book VII. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.8.vii.html. Pomazansky, Michael. “The Church of Christ: The Concept of the Church of Christ on Earth.” Orthodox Christian Information Center. http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/ pomaz_church.aspx. ———. “Is There an Invisible Church?” Orthodox Christian Information Center. http:// orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/pomaz_invisible.aspx. Popovich, Archimandrite Justin. “The Attributes of the Church.” Orthodox Life 31.1 (1981) 28–33. Reising, Richard. ChurchMarketing 101: Preparing Your Church for Greater Growth. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006. Rimbert. Life of Ansgar, the Apostle of the North, 801–865. Translated by Charles H. Robinson. Medieval Sourcebook. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anskar.asp. Robertson, J. N. W. B., trans. The Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, Sometimes Called the Council of Bethlehem, Holden under Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem in 1672. New York: AMS, 1969. Rommen, Edward. Come and See: An Orthodox Perspective on Contextualization. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2013.

186

Bibliography ———. “Enlightenment Antecedents and the Modern Imaginary.” In Get Real: On Evangelism in the Late Modern World, 19–35. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2009. ———. Into All the World: An Orthodox Theology of Mission. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2017. ———. Namenschristentum: Theologisch-Soziologische Erwägungen. Edition C. Bad Liebenzell: Verlag der Liebenzeller Mission, 1985. ———. Die Notwendigkeit der Umkehr: Missionsstrategie und Gemeindeaufbau in Der Sich Evangelikaler Missionswissenschaftler Nordamerikas. 2nd ed. Giessen: Brunnen, 1994. Ross, Donald L. “Gregory of Nyssa.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by James Fieser and Bradley Dowden. http://www.iep.utm.edu/gregoryn/. Rufinus of Aquileia. A Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed. Translated by William Henry Fremantle. In vol. 3 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952–57. http://www.ccel.org/ ccel/schaff/npnf203.vi.xiii.i.html. Savage, Sam. “Is the Ability to Count Innate?” RedOrbit, August 19, 2008. http://www. redorbit.com/news/science/1526107/is_the_ability_to_count_innate/. Schaller, Lyle E. 44 Ways to Increase Church Attendance. Nashville: Abingdon, 1988. Schmemann, Alexander. Introduction to Liturgical Theology. Translated by Asheleigh E. Moorhouse. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2003. Schütz, Joseph. Die Lehre der Slawen Kyrill und Method. St. Ottilien: Eros, 1985. Schwartz, Christian A. Natural Church Development: A Guide to Eight Essential Qualities of Healthy Churches. 6th ed. St. Charles, IL: ChurchSmart, 2003. Scouteris, Constantine B. Ecclesial Being: Contributions to Theological Dialogue. Edited by Christopher Veniamin. South Canaan, PA: Mt. Thabor, 2005. Searcy, Nelson, and Jennifer Dykes Henson. Ignite : How to Spark Immediate Growth in Your Church. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009. “Size of Congregation.” Association of Religious Data Archives. http://www.thearda.com/ conqs/qs_295.asp. Solovyov, Vladimir Sergeyevich. Lectures on Divine Humanity. Revised and edited by Boris Jakim. Esalen Institute/Lindisfarne Library of Russian Philosophy. Hudson, NY: Lindisfarne, 1995. Standal, Helge B. “Kirkevekst I den Norske Kirke: Anvendelse av Kirkevekst-Prinsipper I en Statskirke.” ThM thesis, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1987. Staniloae, Dumitru. Orthodox Spirituality: A Practical Guide for the Faithful and a Definitive Manual for the Scholar. South Canaan, PA: St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 2002. Starling, Allan, ed. Seeds of Promise: World Consultation on Frontier Missions, Edinburgh ’80. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1981. Stewart, Angus. “The Apostolicity of the Church.” http://www.cprf.co.uk/articles/ apostolicity.htm. Taylor, Charles. A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 2007. Tertullian. Prescription against Heretics. Translated by Peter Holmes. In vol. 3 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, revised by A. Cleveland Coxe. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969–73. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/ schaff/anf03.v.iii.i.html. Thomas Aquinas, Saint. Catena Aurea. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/catena1.html.

187

Bibliography Thumma, Scott, and Adair Lummis. “Growing up and Leaving Home: Megachurches that Depart Denominations.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Religious Research Association, November 3, 2007. Hartford Institute for Religion Research. http://www.hartfordinstitute.org/rra.html. Thurston, H. “Catholic.” In vol. 3 of The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton, 1908. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm. Towns, Elmer L. “The Attributes of God.” http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/bible/ Doctrines/God/Attributes of God.htm. Turnbull, Thomas Napier. What God Hath Wrought: A Short History of the Apostolic Church. Bradford, UK: Puritan, 1959. United Church of England and Ireland. The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments : And Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, According to the Use of the United Church of England and Ireland. Frank Baker Collection of Wesleyana and British Methodism. London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1863. United Methodist Church (U.S.), and Methodist Church (U.S.). The Book of Worship for Church and Home: With Orders of Worship, Services for the Administration of the Sacraments, and Other Aids to Worship According to the Usages of the Methodist Church. Nashville: United Methodist, 1964. Van Gelder, Craig. The Essence of the Church: A Community Created by the Spirit. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000. Veronis, Luke Alexander. Go Forth: Stories of Mission and Resurrection in Albania. Ben Lomond, CA: Conciliar, 2009. Vincent of Lerin, Saint. Commonitorium. Translated by C. A. Heurtley. In vol. 11 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952–57. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf211.iii. html. Wagner, C. Peter. “How Ethical Is the Homogeneous Unit Principle?” Occasional Bulletin of Missionary Research 2 (1978) 12–19. ———. Our Kind of People: The Ethical Dimensions of Church Growth in America. Atlanta: John Knox, 1979. ———. Your Church Can Grow. Rev. ed. Ventura, CA: Regal, 1984. Ware, Kallistos. “God Immanent yet Transcendent: The Divine Energies according to Saint Gregory Palamas.” In In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God’s Presence in a Scientific World, edited by Philip Clayton and Arthur Peacocke, 157–68. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Webster, Douglas D. Selling Jesus: What’s Wrong with Marketing the Church. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992. Wilhelm, J. “Apostolic Succession.” Catholic Answers. http://www.catholic.com/ encyclopedia/apostolic-succession. Winter, Ralph D., and Steven C. Hawthorne, eds. Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1981. Wright, N. T. Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense. New York: HarperOne, 2006. Zizioulas, Jean. Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church. Contemporary Greek Theologians 4. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985. ———. Communion and Otherness: Further Studies in Personhood and the Church. Edited by Paul McPartlan. London: T & T Clark, 2006.

188

Index

actual, 2, 10, 14–15, 17, 26, 32, 35, 42, 45, 51, 75, 79, 90, 97, 102, 115, 124, 153, 158, 163, 177 actuality, 17, 42, 90 actualization, 28–30, 32, 44, 52, 59, 89, 96, 140, 167 actualized, 19, 29–30, 32–33, 35, 39–40, 42, 44–45, 47, 55, 59, 62, 89, 96, 155 add, 52–53, 87, 115, 156 addition, 6, 9, 16, 25, 59, 61, 85, 92, 119, 165, 169, 171, 178 Additional, 5, 33, 108–9 adds, 29, 52, 67, 91 administration, 70, 81, 83, 116, 162, 175 advantage, 10, 70, 119, 174 Afanasiev, 23, 62–66, 68, 73, 96, 156–57 Afonsky, 47, 49, 56, 58 African, 5, 148, 162 age, 21, 25, 99, 104, 145, 147, 149, 168 ages, 21, 38, 96, 98, 106 aggregate, 54, 73–74 agree, 123, 125, 141, 165 agreement, 68–69, 73, 156, 166, 171 aid, 12, 107–8, 119, 126, 128, 162 aim, 12, 14, 87, 150, 163 airs, 32, 81, 109, 155 Alexandria, 107, 144 alive, 5, 12, 73 altar, 2, 93, 101, 133–34, 142–44, 146 altogether, 16, 43, 45, 115, 128, 144, 172

A ability, 1–4, 7, 44, 49, 66, 68, 88, 95, 118, 143, 150, 154 absence, 6, 31, 40–42, 44, 47, 50, 84, 88–89, 96, 116, 138, 142 Absent, 11, 40, 115, 129 absolute, 33, 35–36, 38, 40, 45, 47–48, 56, 60, 73, 89–92, 94–95, 114, 132, 145, 178 absolutely, 33, 36, 40, 48, 50, 135, 152 abstract, 31, 44–45, 90 accept, 7, 20, 167, 174 acceptable, 6, 11, 22, 65 accepted, 9, 24, 57, 75, 84, 155–56, 171 accidental, 17, 41, 43–44, 53–55, 58–60, 62, 73, 78, 81, 84, 89, 96, 114, 121–22, 141, 167 accidents, 17, 38–48, 50, 54, 85 accomplished, 8, 43, 62, 95, 140 account, 7, 39, 102, 130, 157, 162, 170 achieved, 12, 72, 108, 110, 153 acknowledge, 35, 70, 73, 113, 145 action, 28, 50, 58, 69, 71, 97, 104, 125 actions, 45, 95, 97, 172, 177 active, 14, 42, 68, 71, 84, 115, 178 actively, 12, 69, 71, 179 activities, 5–6, 67, 71, 78, 84–85, 87, 125, 177 activity, 1, 7, 14, 84, 96, 114, 132, 136 Acts, 4, 15, 42, 72, 95, 104–5, 109, 126–27, 154, 164, 166, 170

189

Index argument, 22, 25, 79, 161 arranged, 26, 50, 115, 121, 125, 142 arrive, 53, 117, 122, 152 art, 87, 96, 101, 104, 145, 160 article, 11, 30, 33, 143 ascended, 34–35, 37, 50, 93 ascension, 35, 38, 55, 62, 95 asked, 57, 69, 120, 132, 147, 175 asks, 98, 101, 128, 173 aspect, 7, 10, 13, 49, 65, 73, 75, 109, 120, 125, 139–40, 147, 158–59, 162, 164, 175–77 aspects, 1, 6, 9–10, 12, 17–18, 23, 39, 42–43, 47–48, 60, 73–74, 77, 97, 106, 172, 176, 178 assembly, 63–66, 68–76, 78, 80, 84, 92–93, 115, 118–20, 136, 154, 157, 174, 176, 178–79 assent, 66, 68–69 assertions, 20, 22–23, 26, 75, 164 assess, 3, 8, 16, 118, 141, 148 assign, 115–16 assume, 2, 19, 21, 41, 47, 72, 79, 87, 162, 167 assumed, 88, 140, 160, 175 assumes, 7, 12, 17, 28, 55, 163 assuming, 2, 47, 49, 79 assumption, 6, 13, 21, 68, 121 attempt, 3, 35, 70, 78, 155 attend, 14, 43, 69, 101, 147 attendance, 3–4, 8, 12–13, 41, 46, 54, 81 attendees, 43, 54, 80–81 attention, 1, 6, 11, 30, 50, 128 attribute, 17, 30, 48, 52–53, 77, 79, 84, 86, 90, 124, 178 attributes, 20, 24, 28, 30, 45, 47–50, 91–92, 126, 151, 178 Augustine, 88, 113–14, 128, 159, 173 author, 21, 31, 80, 164, 170 authority, 21–22, 24, 35, 41, 84, 147, 155–57, 159–61, 163–65, 168–69, 175 availability, 115–17, 119 aware, 85, 112, 168 awareness, 71–72, 114, 168

Amen, 66, 68–69, 98, 106 America, 5, 11, 13–14, 20, 57, 67, 85, 96, 101, 104, 107, 110, 120, 123, 127, 134, 137, 143, 150 American, 11–12, 24, 162 amount, 2–3, 36, 44, 70, 109 analysis, 3, 5, 7–8, 11, 15, 20, 42 analyze, 5, 15, 20, 46, 50, 178 analyzed, 5, 19, 41, 43, 177 ancient, 16, 25, 62–64, 79, 84–85, 97, 103, 126, 128–29, 145, 147, 155, 164–65, 167, 171 angels, 37, 74, 92, 109, 156 anointed, 98–99, 105, 169 anointing, 98–99, 105–6, 116, 142, 156, 173 answer, 17, 28, 44, 46–47, 57, 139, 161, 164, 171 antiquity, 22, 127, 139, 166 apostle, 56, 73, 144, 155–56, 160, 162, 164, 166, 171 apostles, 15, 22–23, 25, 31, 50, 66–67, 71, 73, 77, 84, 86, 107–9, 120, 134, 154–65, 167–69, 175–76, 179 apostolic, 25, 28, 31, 40, 43, 49–50, 72, 77, 106–8, 137, 139, 154–59, 161–65, 167–72, 174–79 apostolicity, 27, 40–41, 45–47, 151, 154, 157–59, 161–63, 165, 167–69, 171–72, 174, 176, 178–79 apparent, 7, 95, 121, 148, 169 appeal, 25, 103, 112, 165–66 appears, 45, 73, 97, 108, 137 appetite, 48, 87–88, 125 application, 1, 3, 11 applied, 17, 27, 52, 95, 98, 173 apply, 1, 13–14, 55, 84, 152, 157, 160 appointed, 35, 38, 76–77, 84, 103, 107–8, 146, 159–60, 162, 164, 169 apprehend, 48–49, 123, 153–54 apprehended, 39, 87–88, 123, 128, 137 approach, 7, 11, 13, 15, 18, 20–23, 25–26, 33, 71, 115, 133, 141, 166, 171 Archbishop, 47, 120, 160 area, 6, 13, 22, 80, 118, 148, 168–69, 174–76 areas, 81, 83, 141, 145, 168, 172, 176

190

Index biblical, 20, 22, 24–26, 43, 114, 120, 122 Bishop, 56, 76–77, 79, 84, 104–5, 108, 116, 157–60, 162, 168–69 bishops, 24–25, 76–78, 84–85, 99, 104, 107–8, 137, 148, 157–58, 160, 162, 168–69 bless, 62, 69, 98, 101, 156 blessed, 38, 98, 105, 107, 126 blessing, 62, 94, 98–99, 101, 105, 155, 175–76 Blood, 49, 62, 64, 99, 101, 105, 116, 133 Bobrinskoy, 55, 56 bodies, 28, 96, 105, 116, 129 body, 14–15, 20–21, 25, 30–31, 33–38, 41, 49–51, 55–56, 58–59, 61–64, 66–67, 70–74, 78, 84, 92–95, 97–101, 105, 111, 114, 116, 136, 138, 140, 142, 144, 148–50, 158, 163, 165–67, 173, 178 book, 5, 11–12, 18, 20, 31, 51, 57, 67, 87–88, 96, 101–2, 104, 106–7, 109–10, 112, 120, 123, 127, 137, 141, 143, 150, 175 books, 11, 21–22, 53–54, 116, 174 born, 1, 28–29, 33, 54, 98, 111 borne, 27–30, 48, 104 bread, 61–62, 66, 97, 100–101, 110, 140, 142, 155, 173 brightness, 126, 129, 135 bring, 7–8, 16, 43, 67, 85, 102, 108, 111, 130, 137, 141, 148, 150, 163, 176 Bringing, 11, 138–39, 142, 146, 156 brings, 11, 40, 72, 85, 137, 139, 149 broad, 6, 92, 168, 172 broken, 75, 102, 112, 149–50, 160 brought, 21, 23, 64, 66, 70, 92, 101, 126, 128, 133, 135, 137 building, 2, 6, 20, 46, 54, 61, 70, 126, 132–33, 137 buildings, 46, 70, 126, 132–33 built, 2, 65, 126, 132–34, 137, 154 burden, 102 burning, 61, 93, 131, 134, 146 bush, 61, 131, 134, 146 business, 1, 12–14, 42, 46, 70–71, 142, 148

B baptism, 49, 55–56, 65, 86, 97–99, 110, 112, 115, 117–18, 155–56, 165, 175 baptized, 62, 98–100, 156 based, 13, 22–23, 46, 78–79, 85, 119, 141, 143, 166, 171, 174 baseline, 3, 78, 139, 141, 148, 154–55 basic, 3, 8, 22, 71, 79, 86, 90, 109, 118, 143, 164 Basil, 16, 76, 92, 101, 110, 126, 128–29, 133, 135, 155–56, 163, 168, 170, 172, 175 basis, 9, 26, 41, 46, 50, 73, 119, 166 bear, 30, 38, 40, 142, 150 bearing, 29–31, 40, 156 beautiful, 45, 48–50, 113, 123–25, 128–30, 132, 134–37, 139–42, 147, 149, 154, 179 beautify, 127, 132, 138, 141, 143 beauty, 17–18, 28, 30, 44–45, 48–50, 101, 112–14, 123–45, 147–50, 178–79 Bebis, 23, 155–56, 165 began, 5, 7, 11, 132, 178 begotten, 16, 92, 126, 135 begun, 6, 22, 74, 103 behavior, 3, 11, 17, 144, 171 behold, 93, 114, 126, 128, 137, 150 beings, 2, 19, 23, 29, 34–38, 43, 52, 73, 87, 89, 94–95, 103, 126, 145, 153, 177 belief, 6, 21, 75, 85–86, 102, 147, 169, 175 believed, 75, 86, 113, 139, 147, 163, 179 believer, 6, 56, 70, 94, 98–102, 106, 120, 169, 178 believers, 3, 7, 9, 17, 36, 43–44, 47, 50, 61–62, 65, 68, 70, 74–75, 77, 95, 100, 119–20, 135–36, 154, 165–66, 173, 178 belongs, 39, 46, 58, 72, 140 bene, 35, 64, 77, 100, 109, 131, 167 bestowed, 83, 102, 137 Bible, 14, 31, 44, 46, 71, 119, 166

191

Index celebrated, 62, 64, 78, 100, 116, 133, 140, 168, 178 celebrates, 62, 76, 176, 178 celebrating, 62–63, 69, 78–79, 174 celebration, 62, 64, 66, 78–79, 100, 109, 133, 143, 168, 177–78 cent, 50, 67, 132–33 center, 60, 63, 100, 150 central, 22, 46, 49, 63–64, 78, 100 centrality, 78–79 centuries, 21, 24, 133, 164–65, 168 century, 22–23, 28, 32, 36, 57, 64, 76, 111, 163, 165, 168, 170, 172–73 chain, 157–59 challenge, 43, 85, 87, 109, 141 change, 7, 10, 16–18, 22, 24, 40, 42–48, 60, 79, 92, 96, 121, 148, 155, 167, 173, 175 changed, 36, 42, 44–45, 75, 137, 157, 160 changing, 6, 23, 34, 43, 74 chapter, 1, 14, 20, 26, 74, 97, 124 character, 37, 56, 71, 87, 94–95, 107, 161, 176 characteristic, 29, 110, 121, 124, 129 characteristics, 6, 18, 21–22, 24, 32, 45, 125, 175 characterize, 41, 48, 121, 127, 148 characterized, 48, 59, 161, 167 charism, 65, 67, 69, 81, 108 charismatic, 9, 61, 65–68, 70–72, 78, 81, 97, 178–79 children, 8, 14, 16, 74, 96, 106, 131, 134 choir, 29, 83 choose, 2, 21, 64, 120, 131 chosen, 65, 104–5, 110, 153, 170 chrism, 99, 116, 156, 173 chrismation, 49, 97, 99, 112, 116–18 Christ, 5–7, 9–10, 12, 14–16, 20, 22–23, 25, 31, 33–38, 41, 43–47, 49–51, 54–59, 61–67, 70–79, 84, 86, 89, 92–97, 99–104, 106, 108–10, 112, 114–15, 120, 127, 130–31, 135–37, 139–43, 145–47, 149–50, 154–56, 158–59, 162–67, 169, 171, 173, 176, 179

C call, 18, 31, 39, 41, 47–48, 69, 78–79, 85, 102, 105, 111, 115, 137, 139, 142, 151, 154, 159–60, 175–77, 179 called, 2, 11–12, 17, 22–23, 28, 30, 33, 40, 54–55, 57, 59, 63, 65–66, 72, 74, 87, 89, 92, 95, 97, 106, 109, 118, 123, 131, 137–38, 143–44, 149, 159–60, 163–65, 171, 174, 177–79 calling, 6, 11, 40, 42, 55, 111, 128 calls, 13, 33, 69–70, 79, 84, 88, 94–96, 102, 105, 111, 131, 136, 144–45 candidate, 98, 175 Canon, 24, 64, 75, 148, 155–56 canonical, 79, 84–85, 115–16 canons, 75, 106, 109, 148, 165, 169 capable, 45, 53, 89–90, 96 care, 81, 83, 139, 142, 162 Carefully, 43, 77, 84, 124, 134, 138, 144, 146 case, 9, 11, 14–16, 24, 28, 30, 32, 34, 39–40, 44–46, 49–50, 57, 62, 65, 72, 76, 79–80, 84–85, 87, 89, 95, 110–12, 114–16, 119, 121, 137, 147–49, 152, 162, 171–72, 174–76 cases, 9, 14, 19, 45, 63, 79, 84, 148, 169 cast, 10, 64, 130, 144, 150 categories, 7, 17, 25–29, 33, 48, 55, 84, 90 category, 7–8, 26, 28, 30, 40, 43, 52 catholic, 23–25, 28, 33, 40, 49, 72, 74, 76, 91, 94, 106, 108, 116, 137, 139–41, 147, 155, 160, 164–65, 171, 179 catholicity, 27, 40–41, 45, 47, 50, 123–24, 137–40, 149, 151, 154, 178–79 cation, 14, 23, 25, 34, 42, 44, 55, 84, 88–89, 94–95, 97–101, 103, 106–8, 110–12, 114–15, 118–20, 127, 141–42, 146, 154, 157, 161, 163, 173, 175 caused, 14, 75–76, 112, 133 Cavarnos, 127–28 celebrate, 61, 63, 85

192

Index Communion, 36–38, 49, 62–64, 70, 74, 77–80, 85, 87, 94–95, 100–103, 109, 111, 114, 139, 145–46, 157, 165–66 community, 12, 22–23, 56, 61, 80, 103–4, 106, 134, 160, 162, 166, 179 compare, 115, 118, 170, 179 compared, 5, 9, 24, 128 comparison, 118, 135, 152, 163, 167, 169, 171, 175–76, 179 complete, 9, 25, 30, 34, 38, 50, 60, 71, 74, 87, 89, 93–94, 96, 125, 136–37, 140, 171, 175 completely, 14, 23, 31, 33, 45, 79, 94, 111, 115, 137, 161, 174, 176 composite, 11, 38, 40, 42, 45, 47, 53–55, 58–59, 68, 117–18, 121 conceivable, 34, 150 conceive, 31–32, 35, 43, 48, 53, 131 conceived, 17, 23, 27–28, 31, 35, 38, 40, 49, 152 concept, 10, 24, 35, 48–49, 51–53, 57, 65, 86–87, 166 conception, 32–33, 50, 128 concepts, 5, 53, 68, 91, 131 concern, 1, 83, 87, 132, 162–63 concerned, 17, 60, 111–12, 139, 151, 162 conclude, 84, 122, 178–79 concluded, 47, 59, 65, 170 conclusion, 5, 28, 156, 177 concrete, 17, 30–32, 44–45, 58, 75, 90, 95, 106, 115, 125 condition, 52–53, 98, 112, 135, 177 conditions, 5, 8–9, 26, 32, 125 confess, 114, 139, 170, 173 confession, 64, 80, 100, 102, 116–18, 138, 176 Confessions, 88, 114, 128 Confessor, 29, 111 conform, 153, 155, 166, 176, 179 conformity, 91, 152–53, 169, 171, 174, 176–77 congregation, 79, 116, 118, 122 connection, 40, 67, 76, 91, 101, 110–11, 161

Christian, 6, 15, 19, 21–23, 25, 28, 36, 55, 60–65, 76, 79, 88, 97–98, 103, 106, 108, 113, 132, 142–43, 147, 161–63, 166, 171–72, 175–76 Christianity, 22, 133, 159, 163 Christians, 5, 7–9, 46, 62, 78, 103, 113, 132, 140, 144, 162, 172, 174, 179 Chrysostom, 76, 100–102, 120, 140, 149, 168, 171, 175 Church, 1–20, 22–86, 88–114, 116, 118–20, 122–24, 126–28, 130–52, 154–72, 174–79 churches, 5–10, 25, 32, 50, 52–53, 59–60, 73–74, 77, 85, 113, 116, 132–33, 138, 141–42, 145, 147–48, 156–62, 164–65, 169, 176–77 circumstances, 4, 147, 168, 177 cited, 23, 72, 77, 102, 112, 128, 159, 165 city, 77, 126, 134, 157 claim, 24, 40, 48, 151, 161, 165, 169 claiming, 48, 152, 159, 169 Claims, 4, 152, 171, 178 class, 9, 39–40, 46, 83, 138, 174–75 clear, 39, 46, 62, 65, 71, 80, 100, 113, 119, 161, 165, 171 Clement, 31, 77, 107, 144, 158 clergy, 70, 144, 148, 168 close, 30, 40, 91, 178 closer, 43, 85, 101, 106, 108, 176 cloud, 93, 110, 131 cognitive, 2–3, 48, 50, 125, 136 Col, 14, 35, 70, 111 collectively, 55, 58, 68, 140 color, 1, 27, 30 column, 115–17 combination, 30, 42, 45, 143 comfortable, 9, 141–42 coming, 10, 15, 38, 61, 97, 111, 139, 146, 166 command, 7, 14–15, 159 Commentary, 86, 147, 160, 171 Commission, 3, 6–8, 10, 14–16, 41 commitment, 5, 7, 41, 50, 80, 162 committed, 9, 102, 108, 138, 156, 177 common, 9, 23–24, 39–44, 46–48, 50, 52, 54, 66, 70–71, 85, 87, 95, 97, 145, 175 communal, 105, 124, 139–40, 161

193

Index consciousness, 23–25, 48, 102, 147, 155, 164, 167, 171, 179 consecrated, 76, 100, 106, 134, 162, 169 consecration, 69, 94, 104, 133, 162 consent, 68, 72, 139 considered, 8, 12, 17, 23, 41–42, 49–50, 80, 87, 89, 96, 115–16, 124–25, 143, 145, 159, 174, 176–77 consistent, 24, 42, 64, 166 consists, 25–26, 73–75, 89, 138, 140, 159 constant, 5, 13, 21, 23, 43, 104 Constantine, 127, 132–34 constantly, 3, 34, 147, 151 constitute, 16, 52, 54–55, 62, 78–79, 176 constitutes, 30, 50, 52, 65, 75, 123, 132, 136, 143, 152, 174, 176–77, 179 contained, 38, 73, 95–96, 130, 134, 155, 161 contemplation, 124–25, 132, 136, 141, 153 contemporary, 13, 21–22, 32, 43, 54, 103, 113, 142, 144–45, 154, 162, 167, 169–70, 174–75, 179 content, 23, 79, 94–95, 107, 139, 147, 154–55, 161–62, 167, 174 context, 8, 11, 34–35, 37–38, 41–43, 47, 50, 65, 71, 79, 83–84, 92, 94–95, 100, 104, 106, 120, 156, 161, 169–70 contingency, 17, 35, 88 contingent, 33–35, 38, 41, 43, 45, 47, 153 continually, 87, 92, 103, 167 continuance, 50, 156–57, 161, 163 continue, 10, 13, 22–23, 34–36, 46, 55, 79, 84, 98, 102–4, 108–9, 129, 132–33, 157–58, 160–62, 166–67, 169 contradictory, 35, 152, 164 contrast, 40, 113, 127, 169 contribute, 70, 84, 111, 114, 135, 168, 179 control, 2, 4, 111, 121 conversion, 7–8, 10, 15 converts, 13, 15, 77, 113 Corinthians, 56, 62, 67, 77

correspondence, 2–3, 31, 49 council, 24, 48, 64, 75, 83, 109, 148, 154, 169–71 councils, 57, 75, 106, 109, 155, 164, 168, 170 Count, 1–3, 15–17, 20, 32, 34, 50, 52–53, 78, 114–15, 119, 167, 178–79 countable, 2, 7, 20, 54–55, 148 counted, 1–3, 15–16, 18, 40–42, 44, 52–53, 60, 78, 85, 177–78 Counting, 1–4, 6–8, 11–14, 16–17, 42, 44, 52–53, 78–80, 97, 119, 141, 177 country, 5, 66, 72, 112 couple, 45, 81, 103 covered, 93, 131, 133 create, 37, 61, 79, 117, 131–32, 152 created, 19, 28–29, 31–32, 34–35, 37, 52, 54, 56–58, 61, 73–74, 76, 87– 88, 91, 94, 105, 111, 123, 126–27, 131–32, 135, 152–54, 157, 179 creating, 58, 92, 96, 98, 100, 132, 141, 166 Creation, 19, 28, 34, 38, 48, 58, 61, 74, 97–98, 129, 138, 142, 153–54, 175 Creator, 29, 35, 37–38, 45, 112, 146, 153 creature, 90–93, 130 creatures, 37–38, 48, 56, 58, 91, 93–94 Creed, 18, 23–24, 69, 75, 86, 138–39, 147–48, 164, 168–70, 176 creedal, 24, 27, 49, 178 criteria, 20, 42, 84, 118, 132, 166 cross, 9, 11, 69–70, 109, 130–31, 135, 155, 172–75 cult, 13, 35, 39, 43, 49, 113, 115, 120, 123, 125, 147–48, 156 cultural, 11, 132, 139 culture, 8, 13, 70, 76, 125, 140–41, 172 current, 7–8, 50, 80, 88, 172 cycle, 109, 119 Cyprian, 23, 33, 36, 51, 71–72, 159 Cyril, 137–40, 159, 170, 172

194

Index development, 6–8, 12, 17, 23–24, 26, 33, 87, 115, 153, 155, 157 developments, 20, 23–25, 145, 157, 164 devil, 98, 150, 174 devoid, 37, 64 didst, 101, 137 dimension, 29, 37, 55, 91, 98 direct, 40, 47, 56, 153–54 directly, 40, 70, 119, 164, 170 discern, 50, 75, 154 Disciples, 5, 15, 62, 77, 95–96, 135, 156, 160 discovered, 10, 80, 177–78 discussion, 104, 111, 120, 174 disk, 39 distance, 19, 60, 85, 176 distinct, 20, 39, 48, 52, 56, 81, 90, 95, 142, 145, 153, 157 distinction, 23, 28, 34–35, 39–40, 52, 57, 74, 94, 126–27 distinguish, 7, 33, 39, 59 diversity, 61, 66, 132, 139, 141, 148–49, 163 divided, 26–27, 29, 38, 49, 51–52, 73, 85 Divine, 16, 22–23, 28–30, 32, 34–38, 41, 43, 45–46, 48–49, 53, 55–61, 63–64, 66, 68, 70–71, 73–74, 76–77, 84, 90–92, 94–97, 100– 101, 103–5, 107, 110, 113–14, 119, 123, 126–31, 134–37, 140, 142, 145–47, 151–54, 167, 170, 174–75, 177–79 divinely, 72, 81, 83–84, 146 Divinity, 20, 34–35, 57–58, 61, 69, 76, 131, 145–46 division, 46, 52, 73, 107 divisions, 38, 75, 85, 139 doctrinal, 46, 124, 139, 147–48, 169 doctrine, 16, 25, 89, 94, 138–39, 141, 147, 155–58, 161, 163–65, 168–71, 176 doctrines, 73, 108, 137, 154–55, 164–65, 170 dogmatic, 20, 22–24, 26, 75, 109, 164, 170 doubt, 1, 4–5, 13, 30, 169, 174 draw, 44, 50, 126, 131, 164

D Daily, 102, 109–10, 119–20, 139, 141, 147, 168, 172 Damascus, 57–58, 128, 155, 167, 173 data, 3–5, 7, 20–21, 24–25, 52, 124, 152 day, 28, 58, 62, 66, 78, 93, 96, 100, 104, 109, 119–20, 125, 130–31, 133–34, 138, 157, 161, 163 Days, 28, 31, 76, 78, 128, 131, 158 deal, 5, 20, 46, 70, 132 death, 38, 45, 97, 100, 103, 106, 109, 114, 130–31, 140 decision, 10, 166 declare, 96, 139, 143, 163, 169 decline, 3–4, 14, 20, 122 degree, 2–3, 49, 79, 116, 118, 120, 133, 141, 162, 164, 171, 176, 178–79 deliberately, 55, 69, 141, 149, 168 delight, 86, 90, 113–14, 124 denomination, 5, 7, 20, 90, 163 denominational, 24, 118, 161 denominations, 8, 75, 161 depend, 32, 36, 102, 152 dependent, 22, 30, 36, 90–91 depending, 54, 83, 115–16, 119 deposit, 154–56, 163–64 derived, 25, 47, 55, 59, 89, 109, 152, 155, 157 descent, 58, 95, 98–99, 173 describe, 7, 28, 50, 88, 121 describes, 28–29, 66, 127, 173 describing, 9, 18, 24, 30, 42, 61, 90 description, 9, 91, 121, 165 designed, 12, 85, 109, 114, 141, 162 desire, 10, 12–14, 26, 71, 75, 87–88, 90, 110–14, 124, 141, 169 desires, 87, 107, 111–13, 175 destiny, 34–35, 38–39, 43, 88–90, 92, 94, 98, 107–8, 111, 146, 166 determine, 1–3, 13, 16, 41, 118–19, 168, 176, 178 determined, 7, 31, 39, 140, 178 determines, 12, 15, 29, 31, 96, 160 develop, 3, 7, 9–11, 17, 20, 22–23, 25, 28, 42, 57, 60, 71, 86, 94, 115, 132, 146, 156, 167, 170, 172, 174, 177

195

Index entity, 6, 13, 26, 28–29, 31–32, 38, 40, 44–47, 49, 52–55, 59, 87, 89–90, 114, 153, 177 enumerate, 17, 50, 53, 167 enumeration, 2, 52 episcopal, 77, 116, 159–60, 162 epistle, 25, 76, 99, 108, 119, 171 epoch, 23, 127, 172 equally, 23, 38, 48, 79, 113, 140, 170 ere, 4–5, 7, 13, 16, 22, 31, 36–37, 50, 55–57, 63–64, 67, 69–71, 75, 80, 85, 114, 131, 138, 140, 142, 150– 51, 162–63, 167, 169, 171–72, 174 error, 21, 130, 137 essence, 16–17, 20, 23–24, 29, 36–37, 40, 46–50, 53–55, 57–58, 69, 73, 87, 89–92, 94, 96, 98, 140, 152–53, 169 essential, 18, 39, 47, 49–51, 53–56, 58–59, 64, 67–68, 71, 73–74, 89, 95–96, 112, 152–53 essentially, 35, 45, 54, 78, 94, 97, 127, 152–53 establish, 3, 6, 9, 11, 26, 42–43, 46, 78, 84, 170, 179 established, 47, 62–63, 77, 79, 106, 131–32, 138, 141–42, 148, 153, 168–69 eternal, 31, 36, 53, 55–56, 58–59, 92–94, 101, 106, 135–36, 150, 152, 170 eternally, 29, 31, 37, 57, 73 eternity, 34, 52, 93, 103 ethnic, 6–7, 148 eucharist, 37, 49, 54, 61–66, 68, 74, 76, 78–80, 84, 95, 97, 100–101, 109– 10, 116–18, 127, 140, 142–43, 155, 167, 174, 176–78 Eucharistic, 58, 62–65, 68–76, 78–79, 84, 136, 142, 154, 157, 174, 176, 178–79 Eusebius, 107, 126, 133 evaluate, 3, 5, 9, 11, 144 evaluating, 2, 13, 156, 178 event, 20, 95, 129, 133, 142, 156, 167 events, 3, 119, 133, 155, 167 everlasting, 38, 100, 163

dwell, 124, 131, 134, 142 dwelling, 34–35, 92, 101, 103, 110, 114, 131, 134, 137–38, 141, 179 dwells, 56, 126, 129, 135, 143, 169 dynamic, 44–45, 50, 79, 146, 154, 156, 165–67

E earliest, 66, 77, 138–39, 158 early, 4, 23, 30, 62, 76, 78–79, 107–8, 113, 132–33, 142–43, 155, 159, 165, 171 earth, 24, 37, 55–56, 58–59, 66, 72–77, 93, 95–96, 103–4, 108, 137–38, 158, 173 earthly, 55–56, 58, 73–74, 93, 95–97, 137, 145 eastern, 22, 76, 89, 110, 140, 145, 148, 162, 170 Ecclesial, 1, 14, 16–21, 23, 25–27, 29– 31, 33, 35–43, 45–47, 49–51, 53, 55–57, 59, 61–63, 65, 67, 69–73, 75, 77–79, 81, 83–87, 89, 91–93, 95, 97, 99, 101, 103, 105, 107, 109–11, 113–15, 117–19, 121–25, 127, 129, 131–33, 135–43, 145, 147, 149, 151, 153, 155, 157, 159, 161–63, 165, 167–69, 171, 173, 175–79 ecclesiology, 22, 33, 55, 73 ecumenical, 24, 48, 75, 104, 160, 168–69 education, 13, 81, 83, 125 educational, 9, 114, 141, 162 elegance, 44, 123, 138–39 element, 2, 102, 143–44 elements, 11, 26, 41, 61–62, 76, 95, 101–2, 116, 142–43, 176 empirical, 26, 73 enable, 30, 99, 103, 105, 165 energy, 57–58, 95 enhancing, 47, 49, 162 enlightenment, 13, 19, 21–22, 32, 96, 100, 145, 175 enter, 2, 64, 132, 134, 142, 146–47 entire, 10, 56, 65, 133, 136, 138 entities, 13, 26, 28, 33, 41–42, 46, 88

196

Index facilitate, 81, 97, 106–7, 110, 114, 120, 162, 179 facilitates, 14, 18, 37, 90, 106, 153 facilitating, 3, 10, 15, 84 fact, 9, 11, 13–14, 16, 19, 24, 29, 31, 41–42, 48–49, 52–53, 60–61, 66, 68, 70, 83, 85, 122, 125, 130, 138, 142, 147–48, 152–54, 168, 172, 178 factor, 11, 44, 54, 79, 116–18 factors, 8–9, 13, 54, 115, 121, 125, 148 faculties, 50, 87, 89, 125 faith, 6, 8, 14, 16, 37–38, 49, 51, 55, 58, 61, 66–67, 73–75, 77, 86, 95–96, 98–99, 103, 105, 113, 138–40, 147–48, 154, 156–57, 162–67, 169, 173, 179 faithful, 14, 22–23, 34, 36, 49–50, 55, 58, 62–65, 69, 71, 73–74, 76, 81, 83–84, 92–94, 96–97, 100–101, 105–9, 112, 115, 119–20, 126–27, 131, 136, 138–39, 143, 150, 163, 168, 173, 177–79 fall, 8, 52, 88, 111, 116, 150 fallen, 81, 111, 114, 136–37, 158 familiar, 76, 141, 146–47 Father, 16, 25, 31, 33, 36–37, 49, 55, 67, 69, 76, 86, 92, 95–96, 98, 100–102, 104, 106, 108, 120, 126, 135–36, 158, 164, 169, 173 Fathers, 23, 28, 30–31, 48, 76, 94, 113, 126, 138–39, 148, 155–56, 159, 163, 165, 168, 170–73 fear, 69, 99, 107, 110, 146, 150, 173 feeling, 15, 113, 124, 144 feelings, 121, 130, 143–44 fellowship, 55, 60–61, 80, 129, 166, 169 Figure, 27, 59–60, 82 Finally, 2, 18, 44, 84, 115, 117, 140, 144, 146, 171, 179 Finite, 34, 68, 75, 89, 126 focal, 14, 61, 134 focused, 11–12, 30, 54, 175 follow, 7, 10, 13, 76, 108, 110, 120, 139, 176 force, 54, 95, 146, 155, 173 forever, 28, 93, 95, 104, 134–35 forgiveness, 64, 102, 106, 140

evidence, 26, 42, 54, 80, 95, 131, 148, 167, 174 evident, 24–25, 36, 55, 95, 120, 127, 129–30, 156, 168 evil, 88–89, 94, 96, 98–101, 104, 111, 130, 135, 154, 175 evolution, 13, 21, 24 exercise, 70–72, 83, 136, 175 exist, 26–28, 30–32, 35–36, 41, 45, 47, 49, 59, 65–66, 73, 77, 113, 178 existence, 12, 17, 19–20, 26, 31–32, 35–38, 40, 43, 53, 56, 59, 73–74, 87, 89, 94, 141, 146, 148, 166, 177 existent, 20, 35, 152 existing, 28, 30–31, 37, 39–40, 44, 46–47, 54, 57–59, 90 exists, 17, 20, 25, 28, 30–37, 40, 45, 48, 51, 56, 58–59, 61, 73, 75, 86, 92, 123, 152, 177, 179 expanded, 6, 97, 156 expect, 1, 13, 17, 43–44, 48, 64, 102, 115–16, 142, 146, 148, 152, 162 experience, 13, 39, 41, 44–45, 47–52, 73, 87, 89, 94, 100, 110, 112, 124–25, 129, 151–53, 155, 166 experienced, 46, 122, 146, 152 explicit, 2, 13, 15, 39, 48 exposition, 25, 58, 89, 173 expressed, 1–2, 24, 37, 39, 43, 46, 49, 61–62, 68, 70, 75–76, 85, 100, 114, 134, 154, 157, 178 expression, 18, 24, 31, 56, 60, 65, 71, 76–77, 79, 90, 115–16, 125, 132, 138, 144, 166, 169, 174 expressions, 14, 91, 153, 156, 162 extend, 30, 35, 137–38 extended, 8, 23, 106, 133 extension, 30, 94, 156, 164, 167 extent, 2, 16, 43, 46, 61, 94, 119, 121, 133, 140–41, 147–48, 174 external, 8, 124, 127–28, 131, 133, 136–37, 177 eye, 125–27, 136 Eyes, 76, 80, 93, 107, 128, 131, 135

F face, 43, 93, 127, 130, 145

197

Index glory, 19, 50, 93, 96, 98, 114, 123, 126–28, 131–32, 134–36, 138, 142–43, 150 goal, 6–8, 13–15, 101, 111, 149 God, 5, 8, 14–16, 19, 24–26, 28–38, 43, 45–48, 51–53, 55–58, 61–71, 73–75, 80, 86–89, 91–96, 98–107, 110–12, 114, 119–21, 126–28, 130–32, 134–42, 144–46, 152–54, 156, 160, 162–64, 166, 169–71, 173, 177, 179 godhead, 16, 29, 55, 57, 92, 169 godlikeness, 34, 43, 89, 94–95 gold, 93, 132–33, 142, 151 good, 5, 12, 14, 43, 45, 48–49, 66, 70, 86–92, 94, 96, 98, 104, 106, 111–12, 114, 120, 123–24, 130, 135, 145, 149, 154–55, 158, 175, 178 goodness, 17–18, 20, 30, 45, 47–49, 86–97, 99, 101, 103, 105–7, 109, 111–15, 117–19, 121–22, 124, 178–79 gospel, 6, 8–10, 13–14, 36, 74, 99, 107, 119, 135, 138, 155, 159–60, 164–66 grace, 14, 23, 33, 55, 58, 63, 66–67, 70, 74, 88–89, 91, 94–96, 104–5, 126, 129, 173, 177 gradual, 25, 94–95, 110–11, 114, 120 gradually, 6, 89, 95–96, 99, 107, 145, 177 grant, 69, 99–100, 102–3 great, 3, 5–8, 10, 14–16, 20–23, 41, 46, 77, 92–93, 101, 105, 108–10, 113, 125–26, 128–29, 132–36, 141, 148, 150, 154–57, 163, 168, 170, 172, 174–75, 177 greater, 80, 118, 140, 169–70 Gregory, 20, 28–30, 33, 38, 47, 57, 126–27, 159 Ground, 23, 134, 155, 163 group, 7, 10, 17, 19–20, 42, 44, 46, 50, 54, 60–62, 65, 68, 70, 78–81, 83–84, 111, 115–19, 121–22, 147, 156, 162, 165, 167–71, 174–79

form, 13, 21–22, 28, 30, 36–37, 43–44, 50, 52, 54, 59–61, 75, 77, 85, 109, 112, 115–16, 123, 126–27, 138, 143, 156, 174 formal, 90, 102, 158–59, 162 forms, 7–8, 28, 43, 64, 113, 128, 144, 166 forward, 21, 24–25, 96, 148, 166, 172 foundation, 26, 38, 73, 126, 136–37, 139, 154, 163 founded, 58, 77, 96, 154, 156–57, 162, 164–65 fourth, 36, 76, 93, 116, 172 framework, 20, 22, 33, 50, 170, 178 free, 24, 88, 91, 130, 140, 147, 170–71, 173 freedom, 21–22, 175 frequency, 43, 79, 115–18, 178 fruits, 64, 115, 121, 178 fullness, 14, 16, 35, 37, 49, 56, 61, 66, 73–74, 96, 101, 139 fully, 24, 37, 62, 76, 80, 89, 93–94, 96, 115, 139–40, 145, 164, 176 function, 6, 30, 41, 44, 51, 55, 66, 68, 71, 104, 110, 134, 145, 152 functions, 66, 87, 89, 94, 110, 165 fundamental, 5, 17, 23, 26–27, 39–42, 44, 58, 64, 140 future, 4, 38, 56, 74, 77, 136, 166

G gain, 30, 78, 115, 154 gather, 20, 62, 66, 100, 132 gathered, 62–63, 74, 78, 104, 143, 166 gathering, 54, 79, 83, 143, 155, 177 general, 5, 8–9, 12, 14, 27, 38, 41, 49, 55, 61, 81, 84, 87, 90, 95, 123, 155–56, 163 generally, 3, 51, 104, 153, 155 generated, 30, 70–71, 73 generations, 50, 74, 108, 156, 166, 169, 174 ghost, 16, 86, 148, 169 glorify, 25, 101, 123, 127, 136, 171 glorious, 26, 50, 101, 120, 126, 128, 134–35, 141

198

Index hidden, 21–22, 58, 88 hierarchical, 76, 78, 146, 162, 176 hierarchy, 26–27, 31, 58, 84, 89, 95, 108, 118, 146, 168, 176 Hierotheos, 150–51, 167 high, 20, 43, 49, 93, 110, 118, 145, 157, 170–71 historical, 11, 13, 21–24, 26, 79, 157, 166, 168–69, 174 History, 4, 20–21, 24, 32, 58, 113, 140, 143, 156–57, 159, 161, 166, 168, 171–72, 174 hold, 102, 139, 158, 161–62, 165 holiness, 23, 27–28, 31, 40–42, 45–47, 49, 86, 91–92, 94–97, 100, 103, 107, 109–10, 112, 114–15, 118, 120–22, 126, 128, 144, 146, 178 holy, 16, 23, 25–26, 28, 33, 36–37, 40–41, 44, 49–50, 55–58, 61–70, 72, 75, 80, 83, 86, 91–116, 118–22, 126–29, 131–35, 137, 139–40, 142–43, 145–46, 148–50, 154, 156–57, 163, 165, 167, 169–70, 172–73, 178–79 home, 33, 108, 143, 161, 175 homogeneous, 7, 9–10 honor, 16, 105, 148, 173 hope, 26, 38, 55, 73, 95–96, 101, 123, 146 Hopko, 97, 100, 102–5, 138 host, 41, 45, 93, 172 hosts, 74, 92–93, 146 hours, 44, 109, 119 house, 20, 65, 74, 77, 101, 123, 126–27, 132, 134, 138, 143 human, 1–4, 10, 13, 17, 23, 28, 30, 32, 35–38, 41, 45, 48, 53, 55–59, 76–77, 87–89, 92, 94–96, 103–4, 110, 112, 120, 124, 126, 132, 135–36, 139–41, 143, 145–46, 148, 151–53, 165–66, 177 Humanity, 22–23, 43, 56–58, 76, 88, 95, 140, 145–46 hunger, 46, 86–87, 128 hymns, 119–20, 143–44, 168 hypostatic, 23, 37, 55, 57–59, 62, 92, 95, 139–40

groups, 3–4, 6, 9–10, 44, 46, 63, 75, 79, 83–84, 115, 118–19, 139, 147, 149, 156, 160, 162–63, 168–69, 175–77 grow, 1, 3, 8, 11–14, 17–18, 22, 34, 42, 44, 68, 87, 106, 176 growing, 5–7, 9, 11, 14, 16–17, 41, 54, 161, 177, 179 grown, 5, 13, 21 Growth, 1–2, 4–14, 16–20, 32, 42–43, 46, 60, 78, 80, 114, 122, 141, 155, 177, 179 guarantee, 15, 64, 104, 163 guidance, 23, 43, 69, 107, 109, 119, 154, 167

H hand, 21, 32, 35, 37, 42, 60, 72, 74–75, 91, 93, 101, 103, 124, 128, 139–40, 166, 173 handed, 25, 154–55, 163, 167, 173–74, 176, 179 hands, 77, 105, 156 happen, 6, 71–72, 112–13, 146, 153 harmony, 25, 50, 77, 125, 129, 131, 136–37 hart, 125, 129 head, 14, 35–37, 49, 56, 74, 104 heads, 69, 93, 102, 173 healing, 98, 100, 105–6, 140–41, 149–50 health, 1, 7, 11, 13–14, 51, 100, 167, 177, 179 hear, 64, 87, 102, 114, 124, 143 heart, 4, 6–7, 32, 43, 67, 70, 88, 104, 136, 141, 163, 170 hearts, 69, 78, 107, 119, 128, 147, 154, 169 heaven, 56, 58, 93, 104, 130, 134, 136–37, 166, 170 heavenly, 56, 91–95, 99, 101, 112, 114, 137, 145 held, 128, 139, 170 helps, 4, 96, 106, 110, 114, 119, 162, 166 Heresies, 25, 36, 77, 88, 138, 158 heresy, 41, 46, 139, 148 Heretics, 25, 77, 157–59, 163–64, 173

199

Index including, 13, 32, 48, 78, 91, 132, 145, 147, 152, 172 increase, 3, 8, 10, 12–15, 20–22, 41, 43, 47, 122 increasing, 3, 12, 17, 44, 84, 113, 154, 177 independence, 21, 36, 153 independent, 23, 30, 33, 35, 38, 42, 48, 161, 169 India, 5–6, 9 indication, 4, 41–42, 84, 115, 121, 154, 168 indicative, 16, 22–23, 46, 54 indicator, 54, 62, 78, 81, 84, 121, 178 indicators, 59–60, 77–78, 114, 120–22, 141, 167 individual, 10, 12–13, 15, 17, 21–23, 25, 28–32, 35, 37, 41, 43–45, 47, 52, 56, 59–60, 66, 68, 71–72, 75, 78–79, 119–21, 123, 125, 141–42, 153, 156, 160–61, 166, 170, 178 individualistic, 21–25 individually, 24, 66–67, 119–20, 152 individuals, 6–9, 23, 63–64, 122, 139, 153, 156–58, 162, 169 indivisible, 33, 49–50, 56, 58, 73–74 inexpressible, 56, 127–28, 143 infinite, 19, 34, 61, 68, 72, 126 informed, 25–26, 175 inhabited, 38, 138, 159 initiated, 3, 33, 76, 160 innate, 1–4 inseparable, 40, 48, 76, 108 insight, 4, 41, 43, 129, 141 instance, 28, 31–33, 36, 39, 44, 48, 53, 152, 155 instances, 28, 43, 53, 73 instantiated, 27–28, 31, 34, 37, 40, 51, 73 institutions, 22, 70, 155 instructions, 109, 137, 165, 176 integral, 4, 22–23, 26, 37–38, 58, 89, 96, 164 integrity, 18, 20, 28, 30, 44–45, 50, 78, 84, 109, 125, 151, 153–55, 157, 159, 161–63, 165, 167, 169, 171, 173, 175–76, 178–79 intellect, 48, 50, 87, 124, 152–53

I ibid, 2–4, 11–12, 20–21, 24–28, 35–36, 39–40, 42–45, 48–50, 52–54, 64–69, 71–72, 74, 87–90, 92, 98–101, 103, 105, 113, 125, 129, 143–45, 152–53, 157, 159, 162, 165, 167, 171, 173–74 icon, 110, 145 icons, 97, 110, 133, 145, 165–66, 178–79 idea, 6–7, 9, 11–13, 16–17, 20–21, 23, 28, 30–31, 37, 47, 49, 64, 68, 78, 80, 83, 86–89, 94–95, 97, 100, 124, 128, 131, 134, 146, 152–54, 157, 160, 168–71, 173, 178 ideal, 17–18, 28–29, 45, 50, 122–24, 143–44, 148, 151–52, 176–79 ideas, 6, 11, 21–23, 25, 28, 57, 86, 90, 95, 123, 152–53, 163 identify, 3, 7, 30, 71–72, 115, 167, 172 identity, 26, 47, 91, 108, 140, 143 Ignatius, 76, 108 illumination, 98, 107, 153 illustrate, 23, 46, 79, 108, 172 image, 37–39, 45, 50, 53, 55–56, 61, 76, 87, 94, 111–12, 126, 144, 152, 154, 156, 165 images, 28–29, 37, 39, 56, 128, 142, 144–45, 152–54 imaginary, 21–22, 32, 46 imagine, 33, 35, 169 immanent, 22, 28–29, 57 immersion, 97, 115, 155, 175–76 imperative, 12, 15 implementation, 32, 84, 142, 171 implications, 17, 21, 46, 56 implies, 2, 19, 31, 42, 55–56, 71, 124 improve, 43, 118, 174, 176 incarnation, 37–38, 55–56, 58, 76, 88, 95, 130, 140, 156 incense, 93, 112, 142 inception, 4, 50, 54, 64 include, 6–8, 40, 48, 53, 56, 74, 87, 97, 106–7, 116, 165, 171, 178 included, 74–75, 109, 147 includes, 13, 23, 43, 92, 102, 162

200

Index keeping, 9, 14, 23, 43–44, 111, 132, 147 Khomiakov, 55, 58, 73–74, 95, 97, 137 Kiev, 133–34 kind, 4, 6–8, 10, 12–15, 34, 38–39, 42, 44, 46, 54, 60, 71, 79, 85, 112, 125, 135–36, 138, 147, 155, 160–61, 171 kinds, 26, 42–44, 67, 79, 85, 143–44, 172 King, 99, 104, 142 kingdom, 15, 33, 58, 74, 88, 94, 99, 101, 103, 106, 110, 136–37, 146 knew, 5, 21, 76–77, 155 knowledge, 8, 10, 13–14, 16–17, 25–26, 29, 61, 67, 107, 111, 124, 137, 153

intellectual, 87, 123, 146, 161 intelligible, 28, 88, 143, 152 intended, 24, 45, 68, 72, 88, 92, 109, 133 intent, 49, 71–72 interesting, 3, 15, 22, 30, 85, 127, 159, 162, 165, 175–76 internal, 9, 124, 127–28 interpret, 20–21, 119, 122, 155 interpretation, 6, 36, 67, 94, 166, 171 intrinsic, 52, 88, 90, 95 introduction, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 97 inventory, 2, 78, 81–82, 115–16, 118 invisible, 24, 31, 33, 57–58, 73–75, 126, 128, 137 involved, 5, 12, 35, 48, 64, 82, 135, 173, 179 involvement, 10, 72, 78 involves, 2, 14, 52, 70–71, 80, 99–100, 107, 123, 144, 175, 179 Irenaeus, 25, 77, 88, 138, 158 Israel, 3, 94, 104, 131–32, 134, 173 issue, 19–20, 141, 148, 161, 172 items, 2–3, 132

L lack, 5, 41, 80, 163 Lamb, 37, 56, 61, 134 language, 9–10, 39, 76, 88, 162, 166 large, 3, 8, 46, 117, 154, 173 larger, 2, 9, 15, 21, 46, 53, 168, 170 late, 13, 21, 23–24, 128 law, 39, 53, 64, 74, 102, 167 layer, 40, 53, 67, 142 lead, 7, 17, 25, 59, 78, 100, 108, 118, 127, 133, 147, 150 leadership, 3, 6, 47, 162, 178 leading, 25, 84, 99, 103, 125, 173 leads, 8, 14, 16, 21–22, 67, 75, 79, 89, 106, 152 led, 5, 23, 58, 69, 103, 143, 174 legitimate, 12, 79, 84, 159, 168–69 Lent, 76, 85, 109 level, 3, 9, 12, 23, 26, 42, 53, 78, 81, 86, 110, 118, 121–22, 163, 178 Lewis, 21–22 library, 53–54, 88 life, 13, 22, 33, 35–38, 43, 45–46, 49, 55, 58, 63–64, 66, 70–71, 73–74, 76, 79–80, 92, 95–109, 112, 120– 21, 130, 132, 139–40, 146–47, 150, 153, 160, 162, 166–69, 171–72, 178 light, 21, 65, 99, 107, 127–28, 130, 133, 135, 142, 145, 172, 174 Likewise, 3, 45, 48, 54, 159, 164, 176

J James, 105, 107, 116, 162 Jerusalem, 133, 137, 139, 154, 170, 172 Jesus, 3, 12, 15, 25, 31, 50, 55, 57–58, 62, 65, 74, 76–77, 86, 95, 99, 101, 108, 115, 126, 128, 135–36, 154–56, 164, 173, 176 John, 49, 55, 57–58, 70, 75–76, 92, 94–95, 100–102, 107, 109, 120, 122, 126, 128, 130, 135–36, 140, 147, 149, 155–56, 158, 165–69, 171, 173, 175 joined, 4, 33, 37, 51, 56, 61, 73, 103, 144 joint, 70, 85, 162 joy, 114, 121, 170 justify, 36, 90, 142, 168 Justin, 66, 68

K Keating, 89, 94

201

Index maintained, 113, 160, 174 making, 4, 28, 33, 40, 48, 61, 69, 89, 105, 135–36, 153, 155, 170, 172–75 manifest, 31, 44, 57, 60, 74, 104, 131, 137–39, 164 manifestation, 25, 31, 44, 61, 65, 67, 90, 92, 95–97, 125, 127, 132, 134, 136, 142, 146 Manifestations, 59, 61, 66, 95, 124, 141 manifested, 34, 38, 61, 73–74 mankind, 72, 99, 120, 138 manner, 34, 41, 66, 68–69, 139, 156, 158, 164 Mark, 3, 15, 24, 62, 100, 131, 154, 160, 179 marks, 23–24, 27, 44, 47, 154, 177–78 marriage, 103, 116–18, 144 Martyr, 66, 68 Master, 99, 104–5, 107, 141, 150 material, 13, 28, 43, 52, 109, 158, 161, 168, 176 materials, 111, 132, 141 matrix, 59–60, 118, 178 Matt, 14–16, 62, 75, 100, 119, 127–28, 150 Matthew, 6, 15, 36, 104, 128 maturing, 14, 34 maturity, 14–15, 84, 178 Maximus, 29, 111, 153 Mcgavran, 4–6, 9–12 meaning, 8, 51, 79, 86, 90, 124, 140, 151, 153–54, 173 measure, 3, 7, 12–15, 18, 20, 32, 34, 44, 50, 52–53, 61, 67, 75, 78–79, 81, 84–85, 114–15, 120–21, 130, 141, 172, 175, 178–79 measured, 7, 11, 13, 37, 40–42, 52, 61, 85, 147, 179 measuring, 13–15, 20, 52–53, 77, 115, 122 mediated, 49, 58, 62, 153 mediates, 34, 37, 55, 143 meet, 61, 69, 84, 134, 162 member, 43, 56, 65, 67, 70–71, 75, 80–81, 83, 92–93, 166

limited, 13, 18, 31, 34, 38, 46, 60, 116, 129, 131–32, 162 link, 45, 54, 76, 166 list, 83, 97, 102, 106, 115, 151 lists, 7, 71, 81, 125 litany, 69, 98, 110 liturgical, 64, 69, 76, 96, 106, 108–9, 119, 127, 144, 155, 165, 176 liturgy, 2, 68, 76, 100–101, 104, 107, 109–10, 119, 136, 139, 143, 146, 168, 172, 174–75 live, 36, 51, 66, 68, 103, 114, 145, 167 lives, 55, 63, 74, 95–96, 107, 109–11, 119–20, 135, 169 living, 6, 9, 14–15, 31, 36–37, 41–43, 50, 54, 58, 65–66, 69, 76, 93, 119, 126, 142, 146, 151, 154–56, 166–67 local, 9, 12, 18, 33, 43, 59–61, 68, 71– 76, 78–81, 85, 118–19, 137–38, 148, 157, 168 localized, 52, 55, 61, 131 locally, 61–62, 65, 139, 169 logoi, 29, 153–54 logos, 29–31, 36, 57, 153 long, 10, 45, 66, 77, 98–99, 111–12, 154, 175, 177 longer, 16, 22, 33, 45–46, 63, 76, 89, 102, 147, 150 Lord, 12, 16, 25, 49–50, 55, 57, 61–64, 67, 69, 73–74, 77–78, 86, 88, 93, 96, 99, 101–2, 104–5, 107, 110, 123, 126, 131, 134–37, 143, 146– 47, 150, 155, 162–65, 169, 173 loss, 7, 13–14, 41 lost, 43, 45, 68, 79, 102, 111, 160 love, 23, 26, 29, 36, 45, 48, 73, 87, 91, 95–96, 101–3, 111–12, 121, 123, 127, 135, 141 loved, 123, 126, 128, 136, 143 Luke, 15, 62, 92, 100, 126, 128 Luther, 160 LXX, 14, 56, 114, 127–28

M main, 5, 53, 83, 132 maintain, 8, 150, 161, 165, 176

202

Index mother, 33, 111, 120, 132 move, 8–9, 15, 19–20, 43, 45–46, 69, 79, 101, 110, 116, 124, 130, 144, 146, 173, 176, 178 moved, 5, 9–10, 24, 113, 179 movement, 4–10, 13, 17, 22, 24, 28, 34, 45, 61, 79, 87–88, 90, 106, 110, 115, 144–46, 166, 172–73 moving, 34–35, 38, 43, 78, 176, 178 multi, 10, 23, 37, 58, 95, 139–40 multiplicity, 23, 33, 44, 72–73 multitude, 3, 52, 58, 73, 76 music, 54, 63, 87, 112–14, 143–44, 174, 179 mysteries, 49, 97–98, 100, 142–43, 175 mystery, 55–56, 64, 86, 146, 155, 157 mystical, 38, 59, 62, 97, 156

members, 2, 5, 8, 12–14, 17, 25–26, 31, 34–37, 39, 41, 43–47, 50, 53, 56, 58–59, 65–68, 70–75, 78–81, 89, 91, 95–96, 106–7, 111, 114–19, 121, 136–38, 140–41, 150–51, 168, 178 membership, 3, 7, 9, 11, 17, 20, 40, 46–47, 54, 75, 148, 177 men, 16, 25, 75–77, 94, 102, 104, 108, 130, 137, 139, 152, 158, 164–65 mental, 32–33, 50, 74, 104, 151–54, 165 mention, 69, 119, 147, 168 mentioned, 3, 25, 30, 53, 77, 96, 120, 128, 135, 147 mercy, 65, 67, 69, 91, 120, 135, 146, 150 mere, 22, 129, 146, 155 message, 15, 108, 140, 143 Methodist, 115–16, 118, 163, 175–76 Metropolitan, 22, 64, 133, 162, 167 middle, 5, 9, 28, 99, 130 midst, 62, 68–69, 75, 93, 100, 102, 131 mind, 4, 13, 17, 23–26, 28, 31–32, 36, 44, 47, 52–53, 67, 69–70, 72, 91–92, 103, 107–8, 111, 113, 128, 135, 141, 150–56, 165, 167, 179 minds, 17, 21, 33, 78, 107, 113, 119, 144, 147, 152–54, 158 ministers, 72, 104, 161 ministries, 65–67, 70–72, 78, 81, 83–84, 97 ministry, 12, 15, 61, 65–72, 77–78, 81–85, 95–96, 104–5, 156–57, 162–63, 178–79 Mission, 4–8, 16, 24, 85, 135, 155, 157–60, 168 missionaries, 4–6, 32, 43, 159–60 missionary, 4–7, 9–10, 32, 160 Missions, 6, 8, 10–11 mode, 29, 31, 37, 40, 43, 80, 114, 160, 174 model, 15, 143 modern, 4, 13, 19, 21–22, 91, 94, 119, 148, 175 modes, 17, 28, 30–31, 39–40, 48, 53 moment, 22, 29, 63, 79, 145, 155, 167 moral, 13, 48, 91–92, 123, 126, 140, 162 morning, 2, 12–13, 114, 119–20, 135 Moses, 3, 61, 131, 146

N named, 31, 138, 162 narrative, 21–22, 24–25 nation, 6, 65, 72, 74, 166 natural, 1, 4, 39, 49, 54, 57, 64, 87–88, 90, 98, 112, 125–26, 136, 149, 166 naturally, 3, 13, 54, 75, 87–88, 92, 129, 157, 177 nature, 1, 4, 10, 16–17, 19, 28–29, 33, 36–38, 41, 44–46, 49, 51, 53–54, 56–57, 63–64, 66, 68, 77, 84, 87– 89, 91–92, 94–96, 110, 115–16, 130–31, 140, 147–48, 152–54 necessity, 30, 35, 40, 58 needed, 7, 20, 53, 55, 67–68, 71–72 nineteenth, 22–23, 32 nondenominational, 115, 116, 176 norm, 85, 91 North, 11–14, 20, 24, 85, 160 note, 3, 72, 91, 108, 123, 127, 148, 159, 163, 165, 179 notice, 53, 61, 66, 134, 168 notion, 21, 30, 39, 49, 52, 66, 89, 125 number, 2–5, 7–8, 13, 15–16, 28, 31, 33, 36, 41, 46, 52–54, 74, 78–82, 84–85, 97, 106, 116–21, 161, 163, 165, 168, 171, 178 numbers, 7, 14–15, 20, 43, 113, 177 numeric, 11, 14, 44, 46, 50, 115

203

Index organization, 3, 12, 19, 24–25, 37, 41–42, 46, 63, 76, 151 origin, 76–77, 125, 164, 170 original, 33, 46, 98, 108, 155–58, 164, 175 origins, 22, 25, 163, 169 Orthodox, 33, 55, 57–58, 67, 76, 80, 85, 96–97, 99, 101–2, 104–7, 110, 112, 115–16, 118–20, 123, 127, 134, 137–38, 141, 143–44, 150–51, 153, 160–61, 166–67, 170–71, 173, 176 outline, 18, 33, 55 outreach, 3, 5, 15, 43, 81, 83, 168 overcome, 22, 69, 130, 140, 146, 153

numerically, 1, 4, 43, 46, 49, 177 numerous, 6, 40, 73, 125 Nyssa, 28–30, 33, 38, 126

O object, 14, 22, 28–29, 31–32, 49–51, 59, 87, 90, 114, 125, 129, 136, 146, 151–52, 154 objective, 94, 124–25, 129, 131–32, 141 objects, 2, 16–17, 27–30, 88, 123, 134, 145, 153 observed, 10, 17, 138, 145 obvious, 10, 43, 49, 78, 107, 110, 131, 174 occur, 14, 17, 52, 95 oil, 97–99, 105, 110, 134, 142, 156, 173, 175–76 oneness, 27–28, 33, 40, 45–47, 49, 51–56, 58–63, 65, 68–70, 72–73, 77–81, 84–86, 103, 178 ongoing, 15, 107, 140 ontological, 19, 26, 33, 39, 49, 55–56, 68, 90–92, 145, 151–53 ontologically, 35–36, 89 ontology, 17, 20, 26, 34, 39, 48–49, 51, 87–89, 124, 136, 152, 177 open, 10, 102, 107, 149 operation, 58, 98–100, 105, 125 opinion, 8, 21, 113, 147 opinions, 22, 25, 121, 130, 147 opportunity, 119–20, 138, 176 opposed, 9, 31, 52, 129 opposite, 45, 63–64, 80 ordained, 76, 84, 104–5, 116, 143, 157–59, 169 order, 3, 5, 10, 16–17, 20, 37, 39, 42, 52, 57, 71, 75–76, 78, 84–86, 88, 90, 99, 103, 105, 109–10, 112, 117, 125, 132, 136, 140, 146, 153, 164–66, 168, 173, 177–78 orderly, 50, 66, 70, 125 orders, 97, 104, 116, 165 ordinary, 39–43, 47, 54, 74, 90, 131–32, 143, 146, 172 ordination, 94, 104–5, 144, 157, 160, 162 organism, 37, 43, 66, 151

P pain, 102, 111, 120 parish, 13, 75, 80, 83, 116, 119, 148–49 partake, 49, 62, 68, 78, 81, 88, 94, 101 partakers, 57, 63–64, 98 partial, 54, 77, 137, 153 participants, 3, 23, 65, 78, 80, 84, 97, 118–19, 167 participate, 34, 57–58, 64, 68–70, 76, 79–81, 84, 100, 105, 127, 136, 139, 178–79 participated, 46, 63, 80 participates, 35, 46, 70, 91–92, 123 participating, 34, 64, 69, 71, 81, 106, 131, 135–36, 140, 179 participation, 19, 24, 32, 46, 54, 57, 63–64, 66, 68, 80–81, 83, 85, 99, 128, 135, 178 particulars, 26–27, 29, 40, 51 parts, 5, 26, 42, 95, 116, 125, 136 passage, 15, 62, 108, 171 passages, 11, 74, 94, 119, 171 passed, 50, 78, 108, 111, 156 passion, 28, 105, 130, 167 passions, 44, 96, 111, 130, 153–54, 166 pastor, 102, 104, 142, 147 path, 34, 44, 98, 100 patristic, 94, 166, 171 pattern, 17, 23, 79, 107–9, 131, 156, 160, 178 patterns, 3, 8, 40–41, 142, 174

204

Index piety, 81, 99, 172, 174 place, 6, 8, 10, 20, 22–25, 28, 34–37, 46, 50, 55, 57, 61, 63, 66, 69, 71, 75–76, 79, 83–84, 89, 92, 95–96, 99, 101, 103, 106, 110, 114, 118–20, 123, 125–26, 130–34, 136–38, 141–43, 145–50, 157–58, 169, 179 places, 5, 23, 27, 36, 57, 73–75, 94, 118, 127, 132, 138, 145, 147, 159 planted, 5, 32, 45 Plato, 28, 123, 128 pleasing, 49–50, 86, 105, 107, 123–24, 130, 136, 158, 166 pleasure, 86, 111–14, 124–25, 158 plurality, 16–17, 52, 59 point, 5, 14, 20, 26, 33, 35, 37, 45–46, 49, 54–55, 59, 61, 74, 79, 84, 94, 115, 127–28, 134, 149, 163, 170, 172–73 pointed, 62, 68, 78, 119, 154–55, 177 points, 20, 24, 42, 61, 70, 115–16, 120, 151, 167, 172, 175 political, 7–8, 10, 13, 76 population, 4–5, 8–10, 80 position, 3, 13, 72, 168, 171 possess, 33, 40, 54, 155, 158–59 possessed, 24, 34, 45, 77, 96, 123, 136 possesses, 53, 59, 90, 111, 114, 136, 138–39, 158 possibility, 16–17, 26, 44–45, 74, 95, 103, 128, 152, 154, 160, 174 post, 19, 32, 35, 38, 62, 160, 169 potential, 16, 32, 35, 42, 45, 51, 70, 87, 94, 140, 145, 152 Power, 38, 42, 50, 76, 88–89, 92, 95, 97–98, 100–103, 105–6, 108, 112, 114–15, 119, 123, 125, 127, 141, 149, 159 practical, 12, 20, 63, 72, 77, 106, 109, 115, 168, 171 practice, 1, 20, 22, 62, 64–65, 72, 77–80, 94, 97, 115–16, 120, 132– 33, 154, 158, 163–65, 168–69, 171–72, 174–76 practiced, 116, 146, 156, 163, 165, 179 practices, 1, 97, 115–16, 148, 154–55, 163, 165, 171–72

Paul, 14–15, 23, 55–57, 61–62, 64, 66, 78, 108, 115, 135, 154, 160, 171 peace, 69, 110, 114, 121, 128, 135 peach, 45 penance, 64, 97, 102 Pentecost, 58, 62, 95–96, 99–100, 109, 140, 155 people, 3–4, 6–10, 12–14, 20, 32, 51, 54, 61–66, 68–69, 71–72, 76, 78–79, 81–82, 84, 87, 94, 100–102, 104, 108, 110, 120, 131–32, 136, 141–42, 145–46, 148, 150–51, 154, 162, 166, 178–79 peoples, 4–7, 10, 50, 85, 139, 149 perceive, 28, 30, 58, 120 perceived, 58, 121–22, 124, 143 percent, 5, 13, 79, 81, 118, 148–49 perception, 2, 22, 31, 48, 79, 123–25, 141–42 perfect, 34, 39, 50, 61, 77, 89, 91, 96, 100–101, 103–4, 106, 110, 113, 125, 129, 135, 140 perfected, 50, 89–93, 95–96, 110, 166 perfection, 17, 34, 39, 42, 49–50, 89– 92, 94, 96, 98, 106, 110, 114, 123, 125–28, 131, 136–37, 139–40, 178 perfections, 34, 42, 91, 126 perfectly, 4, 19, 38, 91, 103, 140, 148 perpetual, 13, 21, 23, 25, 76 person, 10, 29–33, 36–37, 41, 45, 47, 51, 57, 61, 71–72, 95, 98–99, 102, 105–6, 112, 125, 147, 164, 169, 173 personal, 10, 12, 24–25, 29, 33, 36–38, 41–43, 47, 72, 87, 95, 98–100, 106, 112, 125, 146–47, 161, 172, 174 personally, 21, 37, 48, 139 Personhood, 37, 77, 97, 170 persons, 16, 28, 36–38, 55, 57–58, 134, 148, 157, 162, 169–70 perspective, 11, 14, 22, 56, 168 Peter, 11, 22, 34, 65, 107, 122, 125, 143, 158, 173 physical, 28, 87, 104, 111, 124, 126–28, 131 physician, 150 picture, 1, 13, 33, 40, 149, 165, 167 piece, 25, 124, 136, 145

205

Index problem, 6, 12, 15, 28, 120, 152 process, 2, 14–15, 21, 41–43, 71, 88–90, 95, 106, 115, 118, 122, 152, 166, 177 proclaim, 16, 65, 69, 135, 163 produce, 13, 30, 41, 45, 150, 158 producing, 19, 42, 86, 111 progress, 3, 13, 21–23, 34, 95, 120–21 project, 3, 11, 13, 22–23, 177 promote, 7, 13, 42, 144 proper, 8, 22, 39–41, 46–47, 50, 87, 90, 145, 148 properly, 52–53, 81, 145, 153, 164, 173 properties, 24, 27–31, 39–49, 61 property, 27–31, 39, 43, 46, 48, 53, 124 prophecy, 26, 66–67, 112 prophets, 66–67, 71, 109, 154, 167, 169 proportion, 4, 66, 125, 136 propose, 22, 78, 141, 167 Protestant, 145, 147, 160, 170 provide, 4, 7, 12, 20, 33, 38, 40, 43, 47, 49–50, 67, 72, 76, 103, 106–7, 109, 115, 119, 133, 140, 150, 178 public, 113, 147, 155 published, 4–5, 7–8 pure, 28, 33, 53, 60, 100, 112, 120, 135, 137 purity, 99, 105, 163, 168 purpose, 12, 17, 26, 49, 63, 67, 69–70, 72, 87–90, 94–96, 106, 110, 114– 15, 124, 132, 136, 143, 162, 173 puts, 22, 33, 45, 62, 111, 153

praise, 69, 130, 143, 162, 169 pray, 66, 69, 101, 110, 127, 136, 145, 150, 175 prayer, 44, 61, 66, 87, 95, 98–100, 102, 105, 107, 120, 136, 139, 141, 143, 147, 155, 172, 175 prayers, 64, 66, 68, 74, 76, 80, 93, 99, 105, 109, 114, 119–20, 127, 165, 168, 172, 174–75 praying, 72, 116, 134, 155 prays, 55, 101, 104, 110 preach, 135, 159, 161, 164, 166 preached, 25, 77, 156, 164–66 preaching, 77, 107, 138, 168 precious, 23, 26, 99, 101, 105, 132, 141 precisely, 14, 56, 129, 145, 159 preparation, 80, 101, 104, 142–43, 154 presbyters, 72, 137, 157–58 Prescription, 77, 157, 159, 164 presence, 17, 19–20, 24, 34–35, 37, 40–44, 46–50, 54–56, 58, 60–62, 64, 66–70, 72–76, 78, 84, 95–98, 100–105, 108–10, 112, 114–19, 131, 134, 142, 146, 149, 176–77 presented, 1, 4, 24, 47, 74, 80, 92, 143, 175 preserve, 23, 70, 99, 101, 103, 105, 108, 155, 162, 168, 174 preserved, 25, 37, 96–97, 104, 142, 155, 157, 160, 165, 175 preserves, 71, 73, 77, 108, 138 president, 66, 68, 157 presider, 66, 68–69, 72, 79, 81, 83–84, 142, 157, 178 presiders, 65, 68, 84 Priest, 57, 67–68, 80, 96, 98–99, 101–2, 104, 107, 110, 116, 120, 123, 127, 137, 142–43, 150 priesthood, 65, 72, 105, 120, 157, 178 priestly, 65–66, 68–71 priests, 61, 68, 76, 94, 104–5, 132, 134, 139, 142 primary, 6, 12–13, 25–26, 30, 43, 94, 114, 123 primitive, 66, 77, 157–58 principle, 2, 8–10, 22, 52, 64, 70, 73, 80, 87, 113, 162, 164 principles, 3, 5–7, 42, 45, 70–71, 147

Q quadrant, 60–61, 68, 72, 75 qualitative, 7, 43, 46, 55, 79 qualities, 18, 28, 47, 88 quality, 17, 28, 33, 43–44, 49, 75, 124, 129 Quantitative, 7, 11, 43, 46, 52–53, 79 quantity, 3, 16–17, 28, 30, 43, 52–53, 175 quarterly, 79 question, 18–20, 44, 46–47, 50, 57, 75, 84, 103, 113, 139, 147, 162, 167–68, 171, 174, 176 questions, 8, 17, 19–20, 36, 81

206

Index reference, 14, 22–23, 48, 88, 152 referred, 10, 23, 28, 30, 56, 61, 99–100, 134, 150, 155 referring, 9, 11, 19, 22, 47, 56, 68 refers, 14, 55, 101, 108 reformation, 24, 75, 97, 145, 160 regard, 87, 133, 159, 163 reject, 21, 88, 124, 155, 161, 163, 176 rejected, 23, 71, 113, 165, 169 rejection, 21–22, 80, 84, 159 relation, 17, 28–29, 50, 56, 73, 91, 94, 155 relationship, 5, 7, 17, 24, 29, 37, 42, 50, 57, 87, 102, 106, 160, 176 relative, 8, 33, 35–36, 38, 41, 43, 47, 78–79, 85, 176 religion, 6, 16, 74, 113, 155, 161, 165 religious, 4, 9, 22–23, 94 remain, 44, 56, 73, 151 remains, 8, 14, 32, 34–35, 42, 56, 73, 129–30, 160, 164 remember, 44, 113, 145, 147, 167, 177 represent, 47, 76, 108, 173 representing, 2, 4, 33, 143 represents, 3, 9, 39, 68, 80, 98, 102, 112 require, 4, 54, 139, 169 resistant, 10 resources, 3, 10, 70, 72, 119, 161, 171 respect, 50, 57, 70, 90, 133, 142, 144–45, 154, 165, 170 respond, 3, 69–70, 134 response, 3–4, 60–61, 68–70, 75, 145 rest, 18, 93, 124, 141 restoration, 103, 140, 149–50 rests, 37, 88, 104, 145 result, 5, 8, 11, 15, 21, 46–47, 76, 80, 85, 124, 131, 148, 154, 177 Resurrection, 28–30, 38, 78, 97–98, 100, 106–7, 109, 140, 160 return, 101, 123, 127, 163 reveal, 7–9, 39–41, 47, 56, 106, 164, 167, 171 revealed, 5, 48, 69, 71–72, 164 reveals, 37, 95, 124, 145 revelation, 37, 56, 58, 63, 97, 108, 136, 156, 167 review, 1, 106, 167, 169 righteousness, 98–99, 103, 163

quoted, 20, 56, 58, 108, 139, 144, 153, 172–74

R race, 23, 138, 140–41, 166 raise, 44, 81, 132–33, 137, 141 raises, 20, 50, 84, 174, 176 range, 87, 116–17 rate, 7–8, 11, 78, 116 rates, 7–9, 14, 32, 42–43, 177 rays, 133, 135, 141, 153 reach, 10, 87, 94, 125, 156, 169 read, 4, 15, 21, 40, 42, 44, 66, 78, 95, 119–20, 147 reading, 21–22, 25, 99, 107, 110, 147, 172 readings, 105, 119 real, 1, 17, 30–33, 35–36, 39, 43–44, 48, 52–53, 55, 64, 98, 100, 140, 142, 146, 151–54, 161, 167 realities, 19, 39, 52, 57, 123, 145, 152 reality, 14, 17, 30–31, 42, 48–51, 56, 73, 87, 130, 151–54 realize, 49, 89, 95–97 realized, 28–29, 32, 40, 59, 63, 89, 94, 138, 161 realizing, 89–90, 96, 152 realm, 26, 28, 33–34, 45, 47, 55, 58, 73, 75, 112, 123, 138 reason, 3, 6–7, 10, 13, 21, 23, 30, 32, 40, 44–46, 50, 54–55, 59, 61–62, 64, 66–68, 72, 77–78, 80, 87–89, 92, 94–95, 103, 120, 124, 129–30, 139, 148, 152–53, 156, 159, 173, 177 reasoning, 8, 21, 23, 154 reasons, 3, 5, 7–8, 43, 80–81, 124, 149 receive, 15, 38, 94, 100–101, 106, 130, 135, 166, 173 received, 77, 137–38, 155, 158–59, 164, 168 receives, 65, 68, 104, 166 receptive, 5–7, 10, 106 Receptivity, 10 recognize, 9–10, 52, 73, 77, 86, 94, 147, 163, 176 recognized, 9, 70–71, 138, 154, 173 refer, 6, 75, 126, 166

207

Index schism, 25, 41, 46, 148 School, 6, 32, 83, 145 science, 11, 57 Scripture, 11, 31, 44, 107, 119, 147, 155–56, 161, 166, 171 Scriptures, 1, 3–4, 14, 25, 44, 48, 56, 61–62, 64, 92, 94, 106–8, 119, 142, 155–56, 172, 178 sea, 21, 93, 133, 175 seal, 99, 112, 173 secular, 12, 70–71, 94, 108, 141–42, 144–45, 174 secure, 2, 10, 41, 159 seek, 3, 120, 149, 162, 167–68 seeking, 5, 26, 85, 143, 163, 179 send, 95–96, 101, 103, 119, 129 sense, 3, 15, 24, 27–28, 30, 34–35, 39, 48, 52–53, 61, 70, 85–87, 90, 92, 112, 125, 133, 139, 146, 168–69 senses, 86, 111, 124, 128, 170 separate, 23, 29, 48, 53, 58, 156, 164, 173 separated, 33, 36, 48, 52, 84, 94, 148 series, 2, 12, 20, 46, 85, 120–21, 133, 155, 169 servant, 104–5, 113 serve, 18, 20, 54, 61, 68, 104–6, 110, 162, 172, 178 served, 66, 68, 104 service, 2, 43–44, 47, 54, 57, 63–65, 67, 76, 85, 94, 96, 101, 103–7, 110, 112, 116, 119–20, 123, 127, 137, 139, 143, 147, 150, 162, 172, 174–75 services, 43, 81, 83, 109, 119, 144, 147–48, 161, 171, 174, 178 sets, 2, 14, 49, 73, 150 setting, 20, 66, 72, 85, 134 settings, 64, 78, 145, 175 share, 68–69, 73, 97, 103, 106, 140, 160 shared, 54, 68, 70, 138–39 shares, 33, 55, 92 short, 28, 85, 96, 130, 169 sick, 97, 105–6, 116, 118, 150, 173 side, 14, 22, 120, 173 sign, 20, 69, 80, 155, 172–75 simple, 14, 16, 20, 32, 37, 53–55, 64, 79, 116, 139, 147–48, 166

rise, 41, 66, 113, 161 rite, 79, 98–99, 102, 105, 116, 137 role, 24, 108, 116, 142 rom, 56, 67, 70, 75, 94–95, 111, 126–27, 135 roman, 24, 97, 116, 134, 160 Rommen, 4, 15, 20–22, 106, 145, 154 room, 93, 116, 118, 174 root, 105, 117, 138, 154 rooted, 6, 22, 29, 32–33, 65, 94, 153, 167 roots, 22, 117, 157, 168 rough, 65, 77, 102, 104–6, 115, 128 royal, 65, 126 rule, 72, 130, 139, 157, 160, 164, 172–73 running, 118, 147, 155, 158 Russian, 22–23, 32, 76, 133–34

S sacrament, 62–63, 65, 79, 97, 99–106, 115–18, 143, 165 sacramental, 56, 72, 78, 97, 102, 104, 115–18, 176 sacraments, 24, 37–38, 49, 58, 84, 95–97, 100, 102, 106, 114–16, 118, 120, 165, 168, 172, 175, 178 sacred, 61, 64–65, 87, 94, 105, 108–9, 126, 131–34, 138, 141, 143–46, 161, 179 Saint, 29, 119–20 saints, 23, 67, 72, 93, 104, 109–10, 119–20, 155, 165, 168, 175 sake, 43, 79, 150, 158, 173 salvation, 16, 34, 63, 74, 94, 106, 135, 140, 170 sanctify, 49, 95, 99, 101, 105–6, 114, 119, 123, 127 sanctifying, 92, 97, 100–101, 103, 107–9, 111–13, 118–21 sanctity, 33, 122, 145, 154 sanctuary, 2, 61, 131, 133–34, 142–43, 146 satisfaction, 13–14, 87, 111, 124 save, 31, 101, 120, 164 Savior, 12, 58, 64, 101, 116, 146 scale, 79, 116, 120

208

Index speaking, 22, 40, 44, 50, 56, 79, 92, 106, 112, 126, 128–29, 131, 133, 171–72, 174 speaks, 15, 24, 29, 56, 95, 125–26, 128, 136 special, 3, 15, 61, 64–66, 71, 76, 99, 105, 132, 134, 142, 146 Spirit, 16, 23, 25–26, 33–38, 43, 49–50, 53, 55–58, 61–63, 65–73, 77, 81, 83, 92–100, 102–10, 112, 114–16, 118–21, 126–27, 129, 132, 137–38, 140, 142–43, 145–46, 149, 154, 156–57, 163, 165, 167, 169–70, 172, 178 Spiritual, 4, 7, 11, 14, 28, 31, 43, 49, 64–65, 80, 84, 87, 97, 100, 104, 107, 109, 111, 114, 124–25, 127–29, 134, 138, 150, 153–54, 161, 172 Spirituality, 32, 87–88, 112, 153 spite, 5, 16, 45, 88, 125, 137, 169, 177 splendor, 50, 125, 131, 133 spoken, 2, 9, 14, 90, 99, 126 spring, 77, 88, 157 standard, 1, 12–14, 22, 52, 91, 132, 147, 156, 162 standards, 1, 9, 70, 74, 84, 142, 179 standing, 63, 80, 84–85 stands, 102, 140, 166, 169–70 state, 6, 13, 15, 29, 32, 41–43, 46–47, 50, 56, 80–81, 84, 130, 153, 177 statement, 23–24, 74, 94, 116, 124, 139, 169–70 statements, 20, 55, 109, 147, 162, 169 states, 11, 24, 30, 32–33, 45, 47, 85, 107, 110, 126, 154, 161 static, 8, 45, 146, 154 statistical, 4, 7–8, 15, 118 status, 46, 84, 145, 171, 176–79 step, 15, 28, 87, 90, 101, 153, 167, 172 stones, 20, 65, 132–33, 142 strategies, 4, 8–10 strategy, 3, 9, 11, 149 stream, 22, 147, 166, 168 strength, 100, 102, 106, 111–12, 116 structure, 6, 15, 51, 61, 65, 68, 70–71, 76, 78, 81, 84, 97, 109, 133, 147, 149, 160, 165, 171, 176, 178–79

simply, 3–5, 11–12, 14–15, 17, 19–20, 22–24, 31, 40, 43, 48, 50–51, 53, 63–64, 78–80, 84, 88–89, 95, 112, 114, 119, 129, 134, 142–44, 146–47, 152–53, 159–61, 163, 166–68, 172, 175, 177 sin, 45, 80–81, 88, 91, 102, 111, 136, 140–41, 149 sinful, 45, 91, 103, 130, 153 sinfulness, 38, 41, 96, 110–11, 140, 146 singing, 69, 113, 168 single, 10, 22, 26, 30, 44, 52–53, 57, 65–66, 115, 117, 136 sinner, 102, 104, 141, 149–50, 170 sins, 75, 100, 102, 104, 138, 140–41, 150 situation, 7–8, 81, 84 size, 17, 40–41, 43, 46, 53, 114, 116–18, 161 small, 2, 20, 46, 80, 87, 144, 148–49, 155 social, 6–9, 13, 76, 139, 148 Society, 5–6, 10, 12, 58, 69, 144, 161 Sociological, 8–9 Solomon, 14, 128, 132, 134 Son, 16, 30, 36–37, 49, 56, 61, 67, 69, 86, 88, 92, 94, 98, 100, 106, 135, 156, 164, 169 sons, 33, 88, 94 Soul, 28–30, 53, 87, 98–100, 104, 106–7, 111, 127–28, 130, 135, 138, 149–50, 166 souls, 96, 105, 112, 129 sound, 60, 113–14, 163 source, 16, 29, 36, 64, 87, 154, 156, 164 sources, 11, 21, 144, 156, 164, 179 space, 9, 17, 29, 34, 38, 42, 52, 60–61, 131–32, 134–35, 138, 141–46, 179 spaces, 61, 131–32, 134, 141–42, 145–46, 179 spacial, 37, 77, 138, 142, 146 speak, 18, 28–29, 39, 46, 50, 52–53, 56–57, 68, 74, 79, 85, 88–89, 96–97, 102, 111, 123, 126–27, 129–31, 136, 138–39, 151–52, 156, 170, 175–76

209

Index temple, 56, 61, 93, 126, 132–34, 137, 162, 179 tendency, 49, 87–90, 96, 144, 160–61 tending, 49, 88–89, 95, 98 term, 6, 9, 15, 28, 36, 64, 90, 95, 128, 162 terms, 7, 11–15, 28, 34, 44, 49, 60, 68, 84–85, 115, 123, 127, 142, 145, 151–52, 154, 157, 167, 176 Tertullian, 77, 156–59, 163–64, 168, 172 testament, 14, 61, 65, 71, 74, 81, 84, 94, 107–8, 115, 121, 127–28, 132, 134–35, 142, 149, 155–56, 161, 165, 178 text, 15, 119, 143, 147, 161, 171–72, 174–75 Texts, 29, 111, 148, 162, 174 theanthropic, 38, 56–58 theological, 11, 20, 22–23, 25, 28, 53, 79, 161 theory, 4–6, 9, 11–12, 17, 20 thine, 96, 98, 101, 104, 143 things, 2, 10, 14–17, 22, 26, 28, 30, 32, 35, 38–43, 46, 49–50, 52–53, 55–56, 59–60, 62–63, 66–67, 70, 74–75, 79, 86, 88–89, 91, 97, 102, 105, 107–8, 112–14, 116, 120, 122–23, 125–26, 129–30, 136–38, 140, 151–54, 163–64, 166–67, 170, 172, 179 thinking, 1, 13, 17, 21–23, 30, 46, 52, 145, 161, 172, 174 thought, 6, 11–12, 21–24, 28–30, 32, 40, 49, 51, 55, 59, 85, 97, 127, 129, 132, 135, 152 thoughts, 28, 32, 100, 113 throne, 93, 101, 104, 127 time, 5–6, 8, 11, 17, 20–21, 28–29, 34–35, 37–38, 42, 45, 49, 52, 60, 63, 66, 71, 73–74, 77, 80, 83, 101–2, 108–9, 113, 115, 121–22, 127–28, 132, 137, 143, 146–47, 157, 159–60, 168, 172, 174 times, 4, 7, 14, 23–24, 27–28, 66, 73, 76, 79, 96, 99, 102, 116, 118, 127, 139, 160, 175 timothy, 108, 160

structures, 6, 8, 76, 106, 108 studies, 5–7, 46, 71, 119 study, 8, 19, 44, 80, 83, 119, 161, 174 subject, 38–39, 42, 44, 60, 170 subjective, 94, 116, 120, 124–25, 141 substance, 17, 27–32, 36, 39–44, 46–47, 52–54, 97, 130, 157 substances, 28, 40 substantial, 44–45, 79, 99 Success, 1, 5, 7, 11–16 succession, 76–77, 84, 106–8, 156–63, 168–69, 176 successors, 107, 158, 160–62, 168–69 suggested, 30, 40, 78, 80, 125, 178 suggesting, 5, 78, 84, 149 suggests, 10, 64, 80, 145 summary, 4, 106, 110, 139, 169 sun, 31, 125–26, 128, 135, 141 Sunday, 2, 12–13, 63–64, 66, 76, 78–79, 81, 85, 100, 109, 119–20, 168 sung, 76, 113–14, 119–20, 139 Supper, 62–64, 73, 96 support, 8, 39, 43, 120, 143 supreme, 17, 91, 130, 153 Surely, 92, 108, 134, 169 symbol, 16, 98, 138, 153 Synod, 148, 159, 163, 170–71 system, 2–3, 6, 25, 53, 72

T tabernacle, 61, 132, 134 takes, 22, 24, 34, 55, 99, 106, 136 taking, 22, 48, 53, 64, 80, 118, 120, 123, 130, 170, 179 talking, 88, 95, 120, 165 task, 4–6, 11, 15, 23, 26, 160 taught, 9, 86, 95, 155–56, 161, 164, 177 teach, 9, 71, 107–8, 110, 146, 167 teaches, 34, 61, 67, 77, 103, 128, 137, 169 teaching, 14–15, 33, 43, 56–57, 64–65, 67, 69, 72, 75, 77, 79–80, 95, 102, 108–9, 137, 141, 143–44, 153, 155–56, 160–61, 164–65, 169–70 teachings, 108, 113, 137, 170 technology, 13, 21, 119 telling, 46, 108–9, 142

210

Index title, 5, 105, 112, 157, 162 today, 21, 50, 68, 87, 103, 120–22, 141–42, 154, 156, 161, 165–67, 171–72, 174 told, 14, 61, 63, 107, 112, 131 tool, 3, 11, 107, 150 tools, 106–7, 110–11, 178 top, 39, 73, 131 total, 2–4, 7–8, 103, 115, 149 trace, 25, 157, 169, 172–74 tradition, 22, 25, 50, 97, 106–10, 115, 118–20, 154–57, 159, 161, 163–72, 174–76, 178–79 traditional, 6, 17, 24–26, 43, 97, 162, 175, 178 traditions, 9, 22, 106, 174 transcendent, 29, 38, 50, 52, 55–59, 86, 110 transcendental, 18, 45, 47–49, 52–53, 77, 124, 151, 178 transfer, 7–8, 161, 167 transformed, 13, 22, 41, 44, 100, 146 transforming, 63, 72, 95, 145 Treatise, 33, 36, 51, 120 trend, 43, 99, 107, 111, 147 tribes, 3, 6, 41, 139 Trinitarian, 37, 57, 98, 176 trinity, 30, 33–34, 36–37, 49, 55–59, 62, 69, 86, 95–96, 98–100, 115, 150, 175–76 triple, 97, 115, 155 trope, 29–31, 41 tropes, 27–30, 40–44, 46–48, 50, 178 true, 16, 21, 24–25, 32, 37, 42–44, 46, 48, 50–51, 73–75, 79, 84, 90, 96, 111, 119–20, 124, 128–29, 131, 135, 139, 141, 147, 151–55, 161, 163–64, 167–68, 178–79 truth, 17, 20, 23, 36, 48, 50, 105, 108, 124, 126, 130, 137–38, 148, 151–54, 156, 158, 161, 163–67 turn, 13, 41, 43, 50, 64, 76, 84, 114, 148, 155, 160, 178 type, 7–8, 30, 44, 50, 115–16, 135, 151–52, 167 types, 17, 33, 40, 43, 47, 57, 113, 123, 161

U ultimate, 34, 39, 43, 87–92, 94, 98, 101, 106, 108, 110–11 unbroken, 51, 77, 108, 157–59 unction, 97, 105–6, 116–18 understand, 10, 20, 25, 41, 89, 107, 112, 146, 169, 171 understanding, 5–6, 8, 13, 15, 20, 23–26, 28, 33, 37, 55, 80, 91, 99, 115, 123, 138, 145–46, 153, 166, 168, 177, 179 understood, 6, 76, 171 undivided, 32, 39, 51–52, 59, 69, 73, 98, 143 unifying, 55, 61–62, 67, 148 union, 36–38, 49, 56–59, 73, 76, 87–88, 94 unique, 1, 30, 40–41, 47–49, 58–59, 104, 178 uniquely, 28–31, 54 united, 5, 28, 37–38, 47, 54, 56–58, 61, 69, 73–74, 78, 85, 88, 93–94, 106, 139–40, 149, 175 unites, 56–58, 67, 75, 106 units, 7, 9–10, 52, 54, 72–73 unity, 9, 16–18, 23, 29–30, 33, 48–49, 51–63, 65–67, 69–81, 83–85, 92, 103, 136, 139–41, 143, 151, 154, 156–57, 160, 166, 178 universal, 21, 24, 27–33, 52–53, 56, 59–60, 72–76, 78, 84–85, 92, 94, 105, 130, 137–38, 155–56, 164, 171–72, 174–75 universality, 50, 124, 138–40, 147 universally, 48, 50, 61, 137–39, 155, 172 universals, 26–28, 32, 40 unworthy, 64, 80, 135 usage, 24, 36, 68, 88, 113

V valid, 23–24, 79, 165 Validity, 8, 24, 84, 156, 162 values, 22, 116–18, 121–22 Van, 20, 23–24 vast, 5, 108, 133 Vespers, 85, 109, 119–20

211

Index words, 2–3, 13–15, 17, 22, 29–30, 37, 42, 44, 52–54, 59–60, 62, 64, 69, 80, 88, 90, 95, 99, 103–4, 107, 110, 113–14, 119, 132, 138, 143, 147, 149, 155–56, 164, 167, 176, 178 work, 5–6, 10, 20, 28, 34, 43, 58, 67, 71–72, 90, 95, 108, 115, 121, 133, 145, 154, 165, 168 working, 5, 9, 19, 67, 70 works, 5, 14–15, 67, 106, 144, 165 world, 1–4, 6–8, 13, 15, 23, 25–26, 28–29, 31–32, 34–35, 38–39, 41, 44–45, 48, 51–52, 55, 58–59, 61, 63, 70–75, 77, 80, 89, 94, 96, 98, 101, 109–10, 113, 123–24, 126– 27, 132, 135–39, 145, 148–49, 153–54, 156, 160, 163, 170 worship, 14, 36, 41, 43–44, 46–47, 54, 61–63, 69, 76, 85, 92–93, 97, 100, 102–5, 112–13, 132, 142–43, 146–47, 155, 172, 174–75 worshipers, 2, 8, 54 worthy, 74–75, 79, 105, 113, 127, 171 writing, 76, 108, 155 writings, 66, 73, 127, 165, 170, 172 written, 77, 107, 155–56, 162–63, 166

vessels, 94, 126, 133, 142, 170 vestments, 94, 112, 126, 132, 134, 142 view, 21, 28, 38, 71, 142, 146, 149–50, 167 viewed, 5, 22–24, 42, 55, 68 virtue, 24, 31, 35, 41, 58, 80, 92, 94–95, 128–29, 134, 138, 140 visible, 24, 28, 31, 33, 73–75, 95–96, 111, 136–37, 145, 153, 167 Vital, 11, 42, 49, 51, 66 Vladimir, 133–34 voice, 113–14, 126, 143

W Wagner, 7, 11 water, 66, 88, 97–99, 110, 156, 173, 175 ways, 1, 12–13, 17, 20–21, 28, 44, 55, 70, 72, 75, 81, 85, 97, 111, 119, 123, 125, 131–32, 141, 146 wealth, 3, 13, 20, 36 week, 64, 78, 109, 174 weekly, 78–79, 109, 119, 176–77 Western, 22, 75–76, 89, 113, 140, 148 Wherefore, 95–96, 99, 137 wholeness, 52–53, 55, 112 wholly, 26, 33, 56, 91, 93, 105, 161 wine, 50, 61–62, 66, 97, 100, 110, 140, 142, 151–52 wisdom, 12, 14, 67, 105–6, 128–29, 134, 152–53, 166 witness, 14, 68–69, 102, 156, 165, 172 word, 6, 14–15, 24–25, 29, 33, 46, 48, 58, 67, 69, 76, 88, 91, 99, 105, 107, 112, 119, 127–28, 130, 156, 162, 166, 171

Y year, 3–4, 63, 79–80, 82, 109, 116, 134, 150 years, 5, 13, 121–22, 133

212