When the Homily is about Immunology

Four Tragic Opinions about the Visible Church

Episode Three:
The hermeneutics of church

note: forgive me for indulging one more “big picture” topic before engaging specifics. After writing this, I may not actually have an episode four because I’m not sure there would be much of a point, because to coin a phrase from a friend: “we seem to all be farting in the wind”. Anyway….

Protestantism has a history of reinvention. It kinda reminds me of Jeffersonian democracy in the sense that it proceeds from the assumption that any given democratic government will eventually be in need of reform: tear it down and rebuild it. From the Orthodox perspective, this seems quite incongruous because we understand the Church (yes, the visible Church) to be the Body of Christ, the pillar and ground of truth (goodnight, have I dragged that passage through the mud enough, or what?!?!?!), founded by Christ, pastored by His Apostles (whose ministry was passed on to the Bishops), promised by Christ to have the guidance of the Holy Spirit into ALL truth, and that this Church would not have the gates of hell prevail over it. The visible church to the protestant is simply an external, a means of governance, a human “institution” which is wholly unnecessary – or at least quite secondary, to the spiritual reality. To us, this smacks of gnosticism. Christ appeared in the flesh, very much visible and tangible…so we believe the same is true of His Church. So, you can see how our jumping platforms differ. They say they want to reinvent the wheel, while we sit back and wonder what the heck we’ve been driving in?

Okay, well let’s assume that right now, almost 2000 years after it was “pristine” we want to recapture the lost original image of what Christ wanted His Church to be. Theories as to when the church “lost it” have really begun to vary (everyone has an opinion!) Traditionally it has always hinged on Constantine. Interesting how we moderners look back at Constantine’s conversion with such pretension and pontificate about how it ruined the Church – many of us can even tell you with confidence that his conversion wasn’t genuine - amazing. I’m guessing that if we lived at the time and had suffered under some of the persecutions we might feel differently about that meeting in Nicea when the Roman Emperor welcomed a Christian Bishop by kissing his empty eye socket (the eye had been plucked out during a particularly nasty time of persecution). But I digress, as usual.

When confronted with numerous examples of beliefs and practices not particularly liked by us moderners that predate Constantine we are compelled to move the date back. We find a liturgy that dates to the late third century (well we don’t like liturgy all that much) and so back we go. In the mid third century St. Cyprian makes extravagant claims about the Church and we move it back. Then St. Irenaios in the later 2nd century appeals extensively to tradition, the office of the Bishop, and the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist…back we go. St. Ignatios tells us in the very early 2nd century about the Bishop being the center of the Eucharistic gathering – representing Christ Himself…back back back. Then we run headlong into the Didache, almost certainly a contemporary of the vast majority of the New Testament (and in fact may even predate it!) Back we go. (Now these are just examples I've pulled out of my nether regions, not intended to reflect literal truths, but mere reflections of them.) I’ve actually heard some even claim that the Church started to “lose it” as soon as Jesus ascended.

Thus from the moment Jesus “left” the earth we are forced to discern on our own what the Church really is and how it should look. (much like theology in general I guess.) Can you imagine the position of power and authority we take upon ourselves by sitting in judgement on 2000 years of history? Heck I can't even balance my checkbook, how can I trust my ability to reinvent the Church? Well, let us assume we believe we can - how do we do this? How do we come to know what the real intent of Jesus was for His Church? Well we appeal to the scriptures of course.

(sound of klaxon ringing) The New Testament scriptures were not written until decades after the ascension…how do we know that they are reliable records of Jesus’ intent? How can we be sure that what the apostles wrote in the Gospels are accurate…after all, the earliest one was written at least 20 years after the fact. Can we trust the author’s memory? Do we not ultimately appeal to the guidance of the Holy Spirit to guard the authority and accuracy of the scriptures? This is a leap of faith, no? Anymore a leap of faith than the faith we Orthodox put into the belief that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church – beyond just the writing of scripture? And then of course we must ask thew age old question: how do we know that we will interpret the scriptures correctly.

As far as I can see, using the hermeneutic of Sola Scriptura as applied to theology in general or specifically to how the church ought to look is akin to sawing off the branch one is sitting on. Ultimately it comes down to the Church. Who wrote the Bible? Who decided what would be in the Bible? And who now interprets the Bible? If the splintering of the church is not evidence enough of the futility of this hermeneutic, then nothing I can say here will change the mind of those who are going back to the scriptures to reinvent that body which wrote and chose the scriptures and certainly never intended for them to serve in such a strange capacity.