Studies

STUDIES

Concerning the Church

By C. R. Hume

There are two passages, I Corinthians 12:25 and II Corinthians 11:28, which deserve particular attention and which are crucial to a proper understanding of St Paul’s definition of the Church.

The whole of chapter 12 of I Corinthians is a comprehensive blueprint, in which St Paul reveals the Church not as some secular institution but as a spiritual and supernatural entity, the living Body of Christ. But in this chapter there is one particular verse which adds an extra dimension to this vision. After telling us how the different parts of a body cooperate so that the whole organism may function properly, and how the seemingly less prestigious parts of the body are to be given extra respect as components which are necessary for its proper functioning, ‘that there should be no division (schisma)’, i.e. discrimination which destroys the unity of the body, St Paul goes on to say, ‘the members should have the same concern (to auto merimnôsin) for one another’. In other words, he defines the Church not merely by its structure or administrative system but by the emotional and psychological concern exhibited in common and in unity by its individual members. Note that they are to have the same concern, not to be equally concerned. There is a subtle difference: I might be just as concerned as you are, but it might not be about the same thing. Think about this in reference to the Anglican continuum; not everybody left the Church of England for the same reason.

This is why the notion of ‘one mind’ is of crucial importance. The unity of the Body of Christ is rooted in the union of minds. There always existed in the early Church a commitment to arriving at a consensus regarding its key dogmas. It is worth remembering that the Greek word for a creed, such as the Nicene Creed, is symbolon, i.e. a joint agreement. The consensus was not to be gained by one group or one leader forcing the rest to acquiescence, nor by granting a superior authority to a particular bishop (primacy is not the same thing as supremacy), but by allowing the Holy Spirit to guide everyone together into the truth.

Again, in II Cor. 11:28, after a recital of his sufferings on behalf of the Church, St Paul states, ‘the daily pressure on me is my concern (merimna) for all the churches’. Plummer, in his commentary on this epistle, makes the perspicacious observation, ‘this does not mean that St Paul claimed jurisdiction over all Churches, whether founded by him or not; he is not thinking of jurisdiction at all.’ The concern or anxiety which St Paul feels for all Christians is not confined to those in authority; it is to be shared by all Christians; ‘the members should have the same concern for one another.’

The Body of Christ is animated by one Spirit, a Spirit who in His concern for his Church sets us a pattern for our own concern, the Spirit who ‘pleads for us with silent groans’. But our concerns are not to be suffered alone since, as I Peter 5:7 makes clear, we are urged to share our burden, ‘casting all your concern (merimnan) upon him, since he cares for you.’ It is interesting to note that merimna, along with its cognate verb merimnô, is generally a negative word in the New Testament, for example, concerns for wealth, this world, pleasures etc. In the passages under discussion, however, they are positive terms, because they are not selfish concerns but concerns for others. In other words, they are manifestations of agapê or love. If we are people ‘tolerating one another in love, diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit by the bond of peace’ (Eph. 4:3), we are manifested as true members of the Church. What keeps us in the Church is the love that binds us together, not a certificate of membership nor an annual subscription.

In conclusion, the Church is not a formal institution nor a geographical jurisdiction, but a Body whose true nature is revealed by the caring response of its members and their emotional and material commitment to one another. If we really care for the Church we must seek union with other Christians, but this is not achieved simply by ticking the boxes on an application form.

TWO STUDIES ON THE IDENTITY OF ANGLICANISM

The word ‘Anglican’ describes a Family of Churches originating with the Christian Faith brought to the British Isles in the earliest days of the Church. The unity of this Family is now fragmenting, a situation which is getting worse by the day. At this time therefore there is a need to clarify the true identity of Anglicanism.

The first Study is by Rodney Hume, classical scholar, teacher, writer, and linguist, who has published a series of commentaries on the Epistles of St Paul. Rodney deals with the fundamental issue of the identity of the Church. The second Study is by Bishop Michael Wright and deals with certain Anglican Formularies which aim to express that identity.

The Two Ways

by C. R. Hume

Whenever we are asked what kind of Christians we consider ourselves to be, we have to start by defining the nature of the Church. In doing this we nearly always find ourselves saying what we think is not the definition of the Church. Hence the title of this article, the Two Ways. Let us start with the Wrong Way:

Most people, if asked to say what the Church is, especially if they themselves are not religious people, will define the Church as an organization or institution pretty much like any other secular group, namely as a collection of individuals who are involved in pursuing certain interests. In other words, like a political party which hopes to gain enough power to influence the way in which the country is managed, the Church exists, so these people suppose, in order to promote its peculiar views and practices, and the way in which this happens is to recruit enough adherents and enough resources. Every secular organisation, whether it is a dramatic society or a political party, will have a certain number of members, and most likely a constitution which lays down the rules which govern the running of the organization. Such an institution will have certain legal powers.

Many Christians, without being aware of it, also subscribe to such a definition when they refer to the Church. The Church to them is a group of individuals existing in society with a programme of activities hardly differing in nature from the programme of any secular society. They might talk of the spiritual aspect of such a Church but the spiritual aspect is regarded as a separate activity or interest, as just another thing which the Church does, or even as something which the Church only does when it meets for its ritual practices. In other words, this Church is an institution with legal powers, a constitution and a place in society.

So much for the Wrong Way; what is the Right Way of defining the Church?

I have written on this theme before but I will try to summarize and perhaps re-phrase what I have said previously.

Firstly, the use of the word usually translated as ‘Church’ in the New Testament, i.e. ekklêsiâ, will not help us very much. Although the word is very common, occurring 114 times, the passages where it occurs, although informative in other ways, do not contain enough theological content to help us to understand its essential meaning. The word which does reveal the real nature of the Church is the word sôma, ‘body’. Let us consider a few of the texts in which St Paul enables us to penetrate this great mystery:

For just as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, so we, the many, are one body in Christ, and each one of us members of one another.

Do you not know that your bodies are limbs of Christ? … Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, which is in you, and which you have from God?

The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?… Because there is one bread, we many are one body, for we all share the one bread.

For just as the body is one, and has many limbs, and all the limbs of the body, although they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For we have all been baptized by one spirit into one body, whether we are Jews or Gentiles, slaves or free, and we have all received the drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one limb, but many.

You are the body of Christ and individually its limbs.

These passages give us an entirely different picture of the Church from the secular model which we encountered earlier. We learn from them the following:

1. Membership of the Church is literally ‘incorporation’ into the body of Christ.

2. We are incorporated through baptism, when we receive the Holy Spirit, and are maintained by sharing the eucharistic meal.

3. The Church is one because the body is one in the unity of the Holy Spirit. We are united because we are members of the one body sharing the one bread.

4. A body is a living animate creature, not a machine or an abstract like an institution. It is held together and maintained by the Spirit of Life.

This is the Right Way of defining the Church, and it is the definition given both by Holy Scripture and Tradition. The Church is not a mere human organization, but a supernatural body, mystical and heavenly. As our Lord says, ‘My kingdom is not of this world’. St Augustine speaks of the auctoritas of the Catholic Church, what we might call its moral authority or the weight of its witness, and this is what the Holy Tradition of the Church is, not coercion, nor the bullying arrogance of a large and powerful institution, but the quiet voice of the Holy Spirit.

As we strive towards unity in our own communities, we should never forget the authentic vision of the Church, because if we lose sight of this vision we will strive in vain. If we boast about our numbers and resources or use our successes as an argument for forcing other Christians to accept our terms for unity, or if we find ourselves bogged down in legal disputes about property or territory, we have become just another secular organization. In another article, ‘One Spirit’ I have spoken of the ‘preoccupation with leaders and an adherence to certain individuals, an adherence which automatically involves the rejection of other individuals’. This is probably the greatest cause of past schisms and remains the greatest barrier to unity among Christians today. Of course, as human beings we have to live in this world and we are compelled to order our lives in such a way that we can function in society. We have to have a roof over our head and a place to meet, money to pay for our food and to help others. We have to appoint people to be responsible for certain functions while we are in this valle lacrimarum, but we should never lose sight of our real home and our only true Leader.

Which formula identifies Anglicanism?

By Bishop Michael Wright

Anglicans opposing the liberal trends within the Anglican Communion usually make appeal to three distinctively Anglican Formulae. Behind all three lies the intention to remain faithful to the primitive Catholic and Apostolic Church. The three formulae are: the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, and the more recent Affirmation of St Louis.

The Thirty-Nine articles are the most venerable of the three formulae; as a series of statements defining the Faith and addressing the doctrinal conflicts of the Reformation period, they achieved their final form and legal status in the Reign of Elizabeth I. A factor which has to be kept in mind is that in this period the close relationship between statecraft and religion was a politically vital concern. The Articles are marked by a moderation which is almost certainly deliberate, since the English government was seeking to stabilise the country after a period of profound religious upheaval. Eventually the moderation of the Articles opened the door to a comprehensiveness in matters of doctrine which has been both the pride and the downfall of Anglicanism.

Toward the end of the Nineteenth Century what had been little more than a national Church had expanded into a world-wide Family of Churches with distinctive and often conflicting styles of churchmanship: Evangelicals regarded themselves as the heirs and defenders of the English Reformation, Anglo-Catholics insisted on continuity with the pre-Reformation Church; meanwhile radical liberalism was beginning to make an impact. It was during this period that the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral was adopted - the briefest summary possible of what all Anglicans hold in common, a summary which serves also to define the Anglican attitude toward ecumenical dialogue. Inevitably the Quadrilateral was itself ‘comprehensive’ in character - a formula every Anglican could approve ‘in his or her own fashion’.

The Affirmation of St Louis is not comprehensive in character - even though some of its peripheral statements may give that impression. The Affirmation sets out ‘Fundamental Principles’ - notably those concerning doctrine and morals - they cover the same ground as the Quadrilateral, but are far more specific and extensive. More important still, unlike the Articles, the Affirmation is not tied to the conditions and particular disputes of the Reformation period - for example there is neither an attempt nor a need to define ‘predestination’. While both of the earlier formulae are placed within the environment of a Western Church separated from the East, the Affirmation sets out that which is common to both.

Undoubtedly the Affirmation is a great advance on the two earlier formulae, but like them it still remains a series of statements - a valuable guide, but not the reality. For this we must look in a very different area - that of liturgy, and for a specifically Anglican prayer. Such prayer is not difficult to find. After the communion of the people there follows a prayer which has persisted from the earliest Prayer Book of 1549 through most of its many subsequent versions:

“Almighty and everlasting God, we most heartily thank thee, for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received these holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ; and dost assure us thereby of thy favour and goodness towards us; and that we are very members incorporate in the mystical body of thy Son, which is the blessed company of all faithful people; and are also heirs through hope of thy everlasting kingdom, by the merits of his most precious death and passion. And we humbly beseech thee, O heavenly Father, so to assist us with thy grace, that we may continue in that holy fellowship, and do all such works as thou has prepared for us to walk in; through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom with thee and the Holy Ghost, be all honour and glory, world without end. Amen.”

This is a prayer said by the whole people of God, it keeps close to the biblical language used also by the Fathers. The Church is the ‘mystical body’ of Christ. ‘Mystical’ indicates a reality which is only partly disclosed by its outward manifestation. The Sacraments are ‘mysteries’ because their outward form discloses only one aspect of their full reality; so likewise the Church on earth, whose greater reality is disclosed further in heaven and fully at the Return of Christ. ‘Holy fellowship’ is another significant definition of the Church since it relates to mutual self-giving of the profoundest quality - reflecting the relationship between Christ and His Church and ultimately the eternal relationships between the divine Persons of the Holy Trinity. It is in this prayer that we find the true identity, the living reality, of the Church.

Which then of the three formulae comes closest to describing this living reality? The Quadrilateral is clearly inadequate by reason of its lack of clarity. The Thirty-Nine Articles are embedded in a Western Christendom separated from its roots. Such an environment is distorted long before it attempts to reconstruct the character of the primitive Catholic Church from biblical sources. It is the Fathers and not the Reformers who apply the Scriptures according to their true force and meaning. The Affirmation succeeds best of the three in breaking free from the restrictions of the past into the eternal vision of the Church.

Home

Editorial

Task