A Thinking Reed

Ecclesiology from Below

Written by

Lee M.

in

This post on Anglican theologian R.R. Reno’s recent conversion to Catholicism got me to thinking about what it means to seek (and possibly find) the “true church.” Arguments about the claims and counter-claims of various churches can involve a complex set of interlocking historical and theological considerations (see, for instance, any number of comments threads at Pontifications), which makes choosing a church seem like an unbelieveably complicated thing to do.

I don’t mean to disparage these kinds of discussions, but after a while the average layperson might be forgiven for concluding that the only way to discover the “true” church would be to take advanced degrees in history, theology, comparative religion, philosophy, philology…

It hardly needs pointing out that this kind of inquiry could be undertaken only by a very small minority of Christians. And, more to the point, it is no doubt extremely atypical as a means by which people are drawn into any particular church. Personally, my entrance into the ELCA was almost embarrassingly haphazard. It didn’t involve long hours poring over the Book of Concord and doing an exhaustive study of Reformation history let me assure you. And I’m probably atypical among laypeople in being as interested in this stuff as I am.

Doesn’t this suggest, then, that the way we think about what constitutes the “true” church should be guided, at least in part, by how people actually come to enter faith communities? Given what seems to be involved in certifying the claims of any given church (according to some), only a tiny minority would ever be intellectually justified in picking one church over another! But surely that can’t be how God intended it to be, can it?

I guess this is part of the reason that I remain a kind of Lewisian “mere Christian” – Lewis believed that the various church communions were like rooms in the same house, all of them particularized ways of living out the central truths of the Christian religion. But to take this position is already to be a Protestant since it involves a rejection of any claims that the true church subsists in any one institutional expression. Or to put it another way, it suggests a principle of latitude with respect to who’s part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. (Which is not to say that any church is as good as any other.)

Comments

3 responses to “Ecclesiology from Below”

  1. Chris T.

    Great post. My path seems to be arcing toward graduate school in theology, and I already have an extremely intellectualized faith as it is—as often as I read things that resonate with me spiritually that I want to share, I constantly find myself coming back to the faith of those around me, in my church community and my family, who spend very little time on specifically theological issues but seem to have a stronger faith and bear more fruit than I do. It’s humbling, and that kind of insight absolutely must be integrated into any discussion of ecclesiology.

    Reply
  2. Kevin

    “But to take this position is already to be a Protestant since it involves a rejection of any claims that the true church subsists in any one institutional expression.”

    My own reading of the Catholic position, post-Vatican II, is not that the Roman Church is the “one institutional expression” in which the true Church subsists, but that the Roman Church is the fullest expression of that subsistence.

    This reading seems to be consistent with the Church’s theological inclusivism (see, for example, Nostra Aetate for more on this).

    But in terms of individual Catholic belief, I’d wager the spectrum is quite varied. I know Catholics who are practically religious pluralists, and others who are quite exclusivistic in stance. It’s a big church, so there’s going to be variety (at least among the laity) no matter what the magisterium says.

    Kevin

    Reply
  3. Joshie

    I’ve been going over some old books I should have read in grad school and came across this quote from Athanasius’ orations against the Arians, (I.3, William G. Rusch, trans.)

    “So after blessed Alexander had cast out Arius, those who stayed with Alexander remained Christians. Those who united with Arius…thereafter they are called Arians. See then, after Alexander’s death, those who are in fellowship with Athanasius who suceeded him…all have the same standard. They do not take the name of Athanasius…Rather, as is the custom, they are all called Christians. For though we would have a sucession of teachers, and become their disciples, being taught by them the things of Christ, we are nothing less than Christians and are so called.”

    In the pluralistic state of the church these days, the naming of movements and denominations is inevitable, for the sake of clarity, if nothing else. But we are called to be nothing less than (mere) Christians. Or to rephrase Socrates, “We are not Lutherans or Methodists, but citizens of the church.”

    Reply

Leave a reply to Kevin Cancel reply

More posts