I find great attraction in Paleo-Orthodoxy. It seems to be a way to look for a useful definition of the church; to peel back the layers of accretion disguising the Church, what it means to be a part of the gathering of believers (ekklesia) in Christ.
It also seems more honest than the term "Undivided Church". Even the church fathers were divided on matters, or worse: Athanasius stood alone. So maybe this is an oblique way to speak about, and learn about, schism.
Note that the church was divided before the Great Schism of 1054. It also drifted into heresy before and since then (Athanasius stood alone). The church split after Chalcedon (451 AD). If I recall, that's how we got rid of Nestorius, who was apparently falsely accused of being a dyophysite. In the process of getting rid of him, we also lost Antioch, which seems to have had the most clear-headed exegetes of scripture at the time. (I've heard it said that had we not lost Antioch, we may have avoided the Reformation). So it seems that the term "united" is a loaded one.
Christ's intention was unity. In his Institutes, Calvin argues well that the Bible means unity in the sense of the Church: that the Gospel is preached rightly, that the sacraments are administered rightly, and that doctrine doesn't get in the way of the above. Other elements are important (appointing elders, what deacons do, how church discipline works, and a seriously healthy desire to stick with the church even when it's as bad as Corinth was in Paul's day), but the Gospel and the Sacraments are the main things.
Does that mean minsters should be recognized from church to church? Yes.
Does that mean not withholding communion from believers from other churches? Yes.
Does that mean agreement on doctrine? Yes, there's a core confession, probably embodied in the Nicene or Chalcedonian creeds (which I suspect Christians already know of and agree with), with all else being optional and non-binding.
Does that mean adherence to Christ's lordship? Yes.
No comments:
Post a Comment