When the Homily is about Immunology

Four Tragic Opinions on the Visble Church

Episode Two:
The “Dynamic Organism” vs. the “Hardened Institution.”

Boy, do we hate institutions, especially when applied to our religious life…not at all unlike how we despise using the word religion in a particular religious context. (“It’s not a religion, it’s a relationship!”) Of course institutions are okay – we might reluctantly admit - if they are geared toward doing something like…oh say…Cancer Research or something.

Wait a minute, back up. What exactly is an institution? I’m not sure I know…even before I can come up with a clear definition I get a negative feeling (in a religious context…oops sorry…relational context) about it. Zens and many other post-moderners proclaim: the church was/is a “dynamic organism” not a “hardened Institution.” Well, how can we practically tell the difference? Definitions are in order.

Let’s start with Institution:
1. A custom, practice, relationship, or behavioral pattern of importance in the life of a community or society: the institutions of marriage and the family.
2. Informal. One long associated with a specified place, position, or function.
3. An established organization or foundation, especially one dedicated to education, public service, or culture.
4. The building or buildings housing such an organization.
5. A place for the care of persons who are destitute, disabled, or mentally ill.

Honestly these all sound like rather GOOD descriptions of the Church…ESPECIALLY the last one. Outstanding really. Of course in relation to definition number 4, Zens takes a swing at the whole “building issue” and the fact that we see the early church meeting in homes by making this rather interesting remark (thankfully he prefaces it with “I think”): “…the primary theological point of the New Testament in this regard is that under the New Covenant there are no holy places.” Funny, I don’t think the same. In fact I don’t believe that there is necessarily ANY theological point, certainly none is explicitly made. Yes the torn curtain to the Holy of Holies may play into this…but what if the REAL theological point was that MANY (perhaps all) places can be holy as opposed to “no holy places.” A subtle but important distinction. Zens (nor do many others) make any mention of the early Church’s habit of continuing to go to the Temple as long as they could safely do so.

Anyway, based on these definitions, I am pretty sure that I am okay with being a part of an institutional church. What about “hardened”? Well that’s a judgment call now isn’t it? I’d have to ask Zens what he means by hardened…perhaps it is simply a verbal shadow of our negative impression of the aforementioned and defined term?

Anyway…Organism:
1. An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.
2. A system regarded as analogous in its structure or functions to a living body: the social organism.

Okay, well this sounds kosher to me…but consider for a moment why we think there is a dichotomy between organism and institution? Must there be? Isn’t the word organism derived from the fact that living beings tend to have a certain ORGANIZATION which affords them the ability to “carry on the various processes of life”? Sometimes these organisms are profoundly complex (speaking as someone who works amidst molecular biological organisms everyday).
Of course the “dynamic” attachment to the term “organism” is interesting and in part meant to contrast with the theory of an institution being hardened.

Well what exactly is Dynamic:
1. Characterized by continuous change, activity, or progress: a dynamic market.
2. Marked by intensity and vigor; forceful.
3. Of or relating to variation of intensity, as in musical sound.

Change…hmmm…well you know we Orthodox are not typically very fond of change. But this is not to say that we don’t ever change. I am reminded again of the analogy I made a few posts ago in regards to the oldest living organism on earth: trees. On the surface, they really don’t appear all that “dynamic” (especially to us tremendously short-lived humans), but on a geologic time scale they are very much dynamic.

All that being said, we certainly do fear any concept of the Church being marked by continuous change. It is a dangerous concept…please note the proverbial advice offered in the title of my blog. Zens seems to imply that a church leader is supposed to “naturally” (by which I assume we mean that it just sorta happens on its own?) arise and then step aside as another more qualified person (for a particular time, place, and situation) takes the reigns? Is this really how we see the New Testament Church doing things? Was the New Testament Church, dynamic?
Was it dynamic when they instituted (oops, did I say that?) the office of deacons in Acts 6? Or when the Apostles felt the need to fill the spot left vacant by Judas, even quoting scripture: “Let another fill his office”? Or when St. Paul provides Timothy with a list of qualifications for leaders and commends Titus to appoint such qualified men to offices such as the eldership? Or when we are commended to obey and honor our church leaders? YES, of course it is dynamic! But it is a sort of controlled dynamism…a living flame intended to last forever and not a raging fire that exhausts its fuel in minutes. It is dynamic, and it is institution. It is animate and yet it is anchored to the ancient landmarks. Thank God.

Is there anything in scripture to indicate that any given church body had some sort of leadership rotation? Or anything remotely like this? What do we make of the offices of Bishop (lit. Overseers or Supervisors), Priests (Elders), and Deacons (lit. Servants). There is no doubt that these offices existed (though Bishops and Priests certainly had some overlap), and that these offices went through some developmental changes…so what? If you read the writings of St. Ignatios of Antioch, the importance and authority of the office of Bishop is clearly illustrated – only a few years after St. John wrote his Apocalypse. And one might also wish to reference St. Clement’s writings, which come even before St. Ignatios’, and make very early reference to the apostolic succession which, unless he was lying (and at this early date certainly many people could have called him on it) the apostles themselves instituted.

Yes, the Church is dynamic…it is not stagnant. It has changed, it has grown, it has matured. Trying to get to a pristine age, reminds me of an old woman desperately trying to recapture her youth. She proceeds from the erroneous assumption that there is some inherent greater worth in youthfulness, which is lacking in agedness. In a similar light, why do we assume that the apostolic period was the “pristine” age of the Church? Are we to believe that the Apostles did not disciple their followers properly, such that within a generation they had allowed themselves to become a “hardened institution” rather than a “dynamic organism?” How could they have failed and allowed the development of the dreaded Hierarchy? And if they failed in this, how much more might they have failed in putting together the canon, sorting out the issue of the Trinity, discerning the nature of Christ, or in delivering to us today any aspect of “o”rthodox Christianity? Maybe the Gnsotics were right? Maybe the Mormons ARE right, who also believe that the Church apostatized right after the apostles died and got EVERYTHING wrong after that?

For us, the Church is an article of faith. It is real, physical and tangible. I've come to believe that you cannot have faith in ANY aspect of “o”rthodox Christianity without first having faith in the Church.
More to come, I think…