Some Classic Views of the Church

by Owen H. Alderfer

To those who have devoted time to thought and study about the nature of the church it is readily evident that a number of views have developed and persisted over the years. While giving specific attention to the Brethren views of the church in this issue of the Bulletin, it seems appropriate that other views be indicated which have existed over long periods of time in widespread movements.

The concern of this study is the essential nature of the church—the church as the church. One’s view of what the church is will, indeed, affect his view of everything to which the church is related. If we can discover some “classic views” of the church, it is assumed that it can readily be seen how the various views will work out in the respective relationships.

The approach to this study is historical and theological: It will attempt to locate in time views of the church that have lasted across the years and have influenced the church in various geographic sections or theological streams. The study will attempt, furthermore, to trace out the thought of the several views, suggesting directions in which the respective views may lead insofar as the church in its relationships is concerned. The study takes up classic views beginning with the most ancient views, the Eastern and the Western, leading to the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic. From there the study moves to two Protestant views, the Lutheran and the Reformed.

The Eastern View of the Church: The Mystical View

By “Eastern view” of the church this study refers to a general attitude which grew up in Christianity east of the Adriatic, in Greek speaking parts of Christianity during the first seven Christian centuries. It is not easy to delineate a specific “Eastern view” of the church because of the mood characteristic of the developing church in that part of Christianity. This attitude did not lend itself of official systematization and legal codes which defined the church and governed its development. The Eastern church is characterized more by a spirit than any clear abiding formulation of a doctrine of the church. Still, it is appropriate to try to grasp that spirit as it indicates a view of the church.

In the early centuries of Christianity, characterizing features began to develop within the church in the eastern Mediterranian which set it apart from the church in the West. The East, productive of a host of great Christian thinkers and writers, walked in the spirit of the Greek heritage to which it was indebted. The speculation of the philosopher, the mystical quality of Platonism, the imagery of the poet and dramatist, the individualism of the early democracy united with a trust in persons more than in laws—all these contributed to the attitude of Christian writers of the East. Eastern names—Origen, Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers, Cyril of Alexandra, and Eusebius of Caesarea, to name a few—are associated with the metaphysical speculation which led to the profound theological issues coming to focus in the ecumenical councils.

Preoccupation with the Logos, often interpreted in Neoplatonic modes, and concern with salvation emphasizing immortality became the central themes of Eastern thought. Athanasius’ writing summarizes the thinking of the East in these areas in a few sentences in Of the Incarnation:

He was made man that we might be made God and He manifested Himself by a body that we might receive the idea of the unseen Father; and He endured the insolence of men that we might inherit immortality.[1]

Athanasius is saying that the manifesting of the Logos is a fact, but more: it is a lesson, a symbol, a sacrament. Christ is seen as being born in us, dwelling in us, permeating us with spiritual life. To such concerns the Eastern church devoted its attention; it endeavored to fathom the mysteries of the world above. The practical focus of the church—if practical it may be called—came to be the realization and enjoyment of these mysteries in personal experience through reason and liturgy.

To this point the study has dealt with philosophical backgrounds and theological concerns of the Eastern church rather than with an Eastern view of the church. In such a setting, however, and in the absence of an explicated ecclesiology, the Eastern view of the church is to be discovered. M. J. Congar discusses the development of a view of the church in the East and suggests reasons why greater development did not occur:

The thought of Eastern ecclesiology from the first envisages in the mystery of the church that which it encompasses of the divine realities rather than the earthly aspects and the human implications. It focuses upon the inner reality of the unity in faith and love rather than the concrete demands of the ecclesiastical communion. One observes the relatively weak development of the ecclesiology of the Greek Fathers; the truth is that these have dwelt in a large measure upon Christology and even more upon pneumatology. They see the church in Christ and in the Holy Spirit rather than in its ecclesiastical being as such.[2]

Arising from these ideas in Eastern Christianity is what may be called a mystical view of the church. John Oman sees this as “…the idea of the Church as primarily a mysterious hierurgical saving institution.”[3] The church is a means whereby the ideas and experiences of the divine realms—the real world—are communicated to men. Indeed, as the future concerns of the Eastern church would show, there must be concerns for truth—orthodoxy, the law of God, and clerical orders, but these are of value only as they contribute to experiencing the relation to Christ and the attainment of immortality through Him.

Such a view of the church resulted in the development of an extensive liturgy as an aid to the attainment of spiritual reality. Congar in his work After Nine Hundred Years shows that the Eastern church across the years has placed great value on “a line of descent from celestial realities to the midst of the sensible world,” so that there developed “a rather sumptuous liturgy, imbued with Holy Mysteries and the idea of ‘Heaven on Earth.’ It was a church essentially sacramental, a church of prayer with less attention to the exigencies of its militant and its itinerant state.”[4]

Father Congar has implied some of the results which tend to flow from a mystical view of the church: Elaborate liturgy developed, the incarnating of divine ideas to raise men’s minds to God. The life of devotion, including the elevation of asceticism, found stress. Individualism expressed within the framework of the church resulted, minimizing the role of corporate worship. The same mood carried over into the structures of the church: priestly and episcopal organization never attained an established unity for the whole church. The church developed into a number of communities belonging to various states. Out of this situation, in many cases, the church became subordinated to the state.

From this brief study of the Eastern church, it may be generalized that a mystical view of the church tends toward a focus upon divine realities. It stresses personal experience of the divine provisions in opening to the individual various degrees of depth in realization. It lends itself to individualism—concern for personal experience unrelated to other persons. It holds the danger of unrelatedness to the present world.

The Western View Of The Church: The Hierarchial View

As described above, the eastern part of the church developed its own peculiar thought and patterns leading to the structure known as the Eastern Orthodox branch of Christendom. So also, the western part of the church developed according to its thought and patterns into the Roman Catholic branch of Christendom, greatly influencing subsequent developments in all Western Christianity. Because this is a part of our more immediate heritage than the Eastern, this story is a more familiar one to us.

The Western view of the church is more easily traced out than the Eastern because a progression of Western Fathers wrote explicitly on the nature of the church. Here theological and practical overtones are present; as the vision of the church developed—often out of a current controversy—new statements were presented to clarify and crystallize thinking on the church. Later writers built upon their predecessors; sometimes they invested the earlier writings with new meanings. Ideas from several of the Western Fathers should be noted to show progress in thought concerning the church.

Irenaeus (died c. 200) gathers up the main second century ideas of the church and presents an outline of developing views. In Against Heresies he wrote, “Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace; …”[5] The church is the sole repository of truth; this is the case because it holds the apostolic faith and the apostolic writings. In a passage later to be much used and abused, he illustrated his case by the Roman church, the church founded by Peter and Paul. It represents Christendom in miniature.[6] Others, such as Tertullian (died c. 220), reflect similar ideas, stressing the soleness of the church and the deposit of faith guaranteed by an unbroken succession of bishops.

In Cyprian of Carthage (died 258) the Western view of the church advances notably. Writing at the time of the Novationist schism Cyprian stressed the unity of the church and noted that this was a unity maintained through the bishops who stand in the place of the apostles.[7] The church is founded on the bishops of which Peter is the first; it is “united and held together by the glue of the mutual cohesion of the bishops.”[8] Reasoning from here he argues that one “cannot have God for his father who has not the Church for his mother.” There is no salvation outside the church represented by the bishops in proper succession; furthermore, rebellion against the bishop is rebellion against God.[9] Here is a practical legal approach to the doctrine of the church. Clearly inherent in Cyprian’s doctrine is much that will harden into medievel and later Catholic views of the church.

The Western church is indebted more to St. Augustine of Hippo (died 430) than to any other single person for the development of its doctrine of the church. Forced to deal with these issues by the Donatist controversy, Augustine wrote extensively on the nature of the church. He accepted the teachings relative to the church current in his time: the church is the bride of Christ, the mother of Christians; there is no salvation apart from it; the church is equated with the universal Catholic Church with its hierarchy and sacraments, and its center is at Rome. Augustine’s unique contributions are in three areas: (1) His view of the mystical relationship of the church to Christ—the body to the Head. (2) His conception that the church’s unity follows logically as a fellowship of love; schism, therefore, is sacrilege, the rending of the church by lack of charity. (3) His distinction between the essential church composed of those who genuinely belong to Christ and the outward empirical church which includes sinners—the distinction between the church visible and the church invisible.[10]

In a definitive work on early historical theology, J. N. D. Kelly observes that, “By the middle of the fifth century the Roman Church had established de jure as well as de facto, a position of primacy in the West, and the papal claims to supremacy over all bishops of Christendom had been formulated in precise terms.”[11] Upon this framework of a hierarchical view of the church was constructed the great institution that dominated the West in the Middle Ages. That is the story of the working out of these ideas in practice which shows the genius of the Western view of the church. If the Eastern church tended to be mystical the Western church tended to be practical, activist, and pragmatic. As Congar summarizes, “This was a church much more effectively marked by the system of militant action and the human expression of the spiritual-celestial authority…”[12]

While a final pronouncement on the Roman Catholic dogma of the church is yet to be made, the practical outworking of this hierarchial view has long since been in operation. The church is microcosmically present in the Pope, the head of the church on earth. Through him spiritual authority is passed to the lesser orders which are in proper succession. In him the purity of faith is assured, the validity of the sacraments guaranteed, and the Christian legal system established. Vatican I (1870) placed the capstone on the system in its declaration of Papal Infallibility, a device for both securing and manipulating tradition. As explicated in the Council of Trent (1545–1563) the church has instituted rites of aid to man’s salvation. She reserves the right to interpret Scripture and to determine accepted versions. She is the one church declaring and assuring the validity of the sacraments; their power is vested in the church. Thus, the church is the only agent of salvation.

The hierarchical view of the church leads to a very efficient organization and institution. It maintains organic unity allowing for a measure of diversity but defining the boundaries of divergence to be tolerated. In this view the power of the church rests in the hands of the few; the many are often little more than passive spectators accepting the assurance of salvation promised by ecclesiastical leaders. Purity and effectiveness in such a view depends upon the quality and ability of the leadership.

The Lutheran View: A Dualistic View

Sometimes positions are more easily described than named; this is true of Luther’s view of the church.[13] The term “Dualistic View” is adopted to suggest Luther’s view of the church as internal and outward, as hidden and seen, as a spiritual fellowship and an organized association, as above the world and part of the world, as saved and sinner. Luther’s dualism arose out of a dilemma: he wanted both a believer’s church based on personal faith and experience and a territorial church which included all in a given locality.[14] In trying to preserve something of both he settled for a compromise.

As did much of Luther’s thought, his view of the church began with his emphasis upon justification by faith. As an Augustinian, however, Luther believed that faith is a gift of God based upon election. The church, therefore, cannot be all inclusive. He insisted that the church is made up of those who live in true faith, hope and love; “… the essence, life and nature of the church is not a bodily assembly, but an assembly of hearts in one faith, …”[15] Moreover, Luther saw that the church is one, not because of any relation to a center like Rome, but because “… each one preaches, believes, hopes, loves, and lives like the other.”[16] A spiritual unity makes a church. Further, Luther’s view of the sacraments brought him to the belief that only convinced believers in true relationship with God and fellowship with the church should share in the Lord’s supper, for only where faith is present are the sacraments efficacious.

Such views imply both a spiritualistic approach to the church and a high degree of individualism. Realizing dangers in these tendencies Luther emphasized ideas which modified the positions and held them in tension with balancing views. He was forced to this from two directions: the necessity of establishing an evangelical church order over against the Catholics and the urgency of setting forth a defense against the theories of the Anabaptists of the type of Muntzer.[17] In providing these answers he moved in the direction of a territorial church.

In the matter of establishing an evangelical church order Luther had to consider a form to be assumed by the external church that it might be an appropriate agency for the production of the communion of saints. Here Luther insisted that only the Word and the sacraments are necessary for the existence of the church; the hierarchy and the Roman See are not essential. The role of the Word and the sacraments was not to be minimized in any way, however. To him these were the marks which made the “bodily external Christendom (Christenheit)” evident. To this outer church belong leaders and laity whether truly Christian or not. “The external marks, whereby one can perceive where this church is on earth, are baptism, the Sacrament (Lord’ Supper), and the Gospel.”[18] These were more than ornaments of the church; indeed, they were seen as effective in bringing people to God. He wrote, “Where baptism and the gospel are, there let no one doubt that there are also saints, even though it should be only children in their cradles.” The outward bodily church and the inner spiritual church are to be carefully discriminated, but not separated. They are related to one another as body and soul in man.[19]

Luther’s view of the church worked out in a kind of dualism in many areas of theology and experience. In anthropology he saw justified man as yet sinner. The man of Romans, chapter seven, was for Luther the justified man struggling—not very successfully—against sin in the flesh. Following through on this view into society-at-large Luther saw the need for the authority and power of the state to keep men in line—even in a Christian state. He saw little prospect of the coming of a Christian society. A man was a citizen of two communities, the church and the state. Each had its function. It was good to have Christian princes governing the state, but the state was hereby not more Christian, even though in such a state the church could play its role more fully.

Luther’s dualism tended toward polarization in many areas of theology and practice rather than balance and tension. In seeking to retain opposites rather than finding a synthesis or a balance, a potentially unstable situation obtains. History showed that people tend either to bog down into an unconcerned indifference in the face of apparently irreconcilable tenets; or, having a vital concern in the life and thinking of the church, they tend to move toward one pole or the other creating divisions.

The Calvinistic View: A Theocratic View

While the term “Theocratic” generally has application to a dominant role of a church or a priestly class in the state, for want of a better, this term is applied here to Calvin’s view of the church. This is justified in the light of Calvin’s emphasis upon divine sovereignty and his view of the application of that sovereignty within every aspect of the church and extending [beyond into society. Calvin’s idea of the church was seasoned by a dream of the Holy Commonwealth in the terrestrial sphere.

John Calvin, who was among the latest of the great Reformation writers, borrowed freely from earlier reformers in developing his view of the church.[20] His view of the Lord’s Supper as a channel of spiritual communion was similar to that of Luther. The concept of the Holy Commonwealth along with that of limited use of external aids in worship showed affinities to Zwingli. The idea of the church as a community of convinced believers and the demand for rigorous discipline suggested Anabaptist influence. However, Calvin adapted these elements to his own thinking and in light of the idea of divine sovereignty developed them into a view of the church that was his own.

For Calvin, influenced by Augustine, the church was constituted of all the elect—the dead, the living, and the unborn,[21] though it is not clear to man in every case who is a true member of the church. “Church” as used in the Scriptures frequently designated the whole multitude dispersed over all the world, professing faith in Jesus Christ, initiated into his faith by baptism, testifying to their unity in doctrine and communion, and consenting to the Word. Many in the church, however, are not of it, for there are here hypocrites of various sorts. This makes necessary a differentiation between the church visible and the church invisible: the tares ever grow along with the wheat.[22] Calvin stated, “We ought to acknowledge as members of the church all those who by a confession of faith, an exemplary life, and a participation of the sacraments, profess the same God and Christ with ourselves.”[23]

The true, invisible church, being based on election, is known but to God. Calvin found the doctrine of election—trust in absolute divine sovereignty in relation to individual salvation—a doctrine of comfort. He was willing to leave such matters to God. It was not man’s business to be preoccupied with his salvation, to seek assurance, or to earn his salvation; man’s vocation was to honor God.[24] Calvin was willing to outline these matters as he saw them in the Scriptures. The outworking he left to God while he turned the greater part of his attention to the structure and activity and expression of the visible church.

According to Calvin the church of God exists “wherever we find the word of God purely preached and heard and the sacraments administered according to the institution of Christ.”[25] It is necessary for persons to be related to the church, for God considers “every one as a traitor and apostate from religion, who perversely withdraws himself from any Christian society which preserves the true ministry of the word and sacraments… Separation from the church is the denial of God and Christ.”[26] With the church is vested the power of the keys, the power of granting forgiveness and the ministry of reconciliation,[27] a power associated with the preaching of the Gospe1.[28] For these reasons Calvin was concerned that the entire community be involved in the church and that the church be involved in the entire community.

Calvin was explicit that the state should be distinct from the church. Only the state had power to wield the sword and to administer physical punishment against evil doers—even if they were a part of the church. However, within the church itself there must be discipline. Believers should be admonished regarding their errors; those who led scandalous lives should be removed from the church. The wicked should be separated from the righteous that they may not be an evil influence and that the erring may be led to repentance.[29] Such correction should not be administered by one person, but by a lawful assembly.[30]

In actual practice, first in Geneva, and later in Scotland and New England, the Reformed Church shaped after Calvin’s thought became an agency which enforced the will of the church on the whole community. In these Calvinistic centers where the church was able to dominate the situation, life and morality were prescribed by the church. To have significant voice in the community one must be a part of the church, subscribing to its principles and practices. The structure of the church with the eldership serving as a kind of spy system to root out evil and divergency assured an oligarchy of the elect. The magistrates became the servants of the church to provide and enforce laws which would secure spiritual and material prosperity and to punish every uprising against the recognized religion.[31] The consistory, under the guidance of the clergy, elders, and deacons, became the voice of God to the community guiding its affairs, establishing a theocracy in fact. Such a Holy Commonwealth could be realized only as there was high selectivity of membership. Disidents had to line up or leave.

A theocratic view of the church carries advantages for the church in its handling of competition. The church directly or indirectly controls manners and morals through discipline in the church, legislation in society-at-large, and elimination of the opposition in general. It makes for a rigorous and demanding church, both in itself and in the community—at least in the first stages of the theocracy and for as long as the vision persists with clarity. The church is all-encompassing; all facets of life come under its domination. Church and community are essentially one.

Problems arise from this view in that religion is practically forced upon people. While ideally all are church members voluntarily, in fact, many are members and participate in the church under pressure and for expediency. In succeeding generations problems become particularly apparent as those born into the families of the godly fail to share in the vision of their parents. More than some others this approach contributes to hypocrisy within the church because there is so much to be gained in maintaining an appearance of godliness.

Reflections and Conclusions

From the views of the church surveyed in this study several statements may be offered as reflections suggesting conclusions:

1. Theology is fundamental to ecclesiology. The way in which a group understands God and his ways with men will have considerable bearing upon the view of the church which it develops. Any religious body must keep its theology in view as it attempts to clarify its ecclesiology.
2. Ecclesiology determines polity within a religious body; indeed, polity is the means for interpreting and applying the view of the church.
3. Out of ecclesiology flows the “style of life” and the general direction of religious thought and expression of the members of a religious body. A shift in ecclesiology will precede shifts in the “style of life” and the general direction of expression of the members of a group and vice versa.

In conclusion, it may be said that a clear understanding and explication of the doctrine of the church is crucial to a logical development and an effective expression of any religious body. A grasp of the nature of the church by its members is a key to any intelligent witness to the world.

Notes

1. Athanasius, Of the Incarnation, in Johannes Quasten, Patrology (Westminster, Md.: The Newman Press, 1963), Vol. III, p. 71.
2. M. 3. Congar, Chretiens Desunis, Principes d’un “OEcumenisme” Catholique, tr. by the present writer (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1937), p. 14.
3. John Oman, “The Church,” James Hastings, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (N. Y.: Scribners, 1911), III, p. 622.
4. Yves Congar, After Nine Hundred Years (New York: Ford-ham University Press, 1959), p. 51.
5. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III, 24, 1.
6. Ibid., III, 3, 2.
7. Cyprian, The Unity of the Church.
8. ______Epistle LX VIII, 8.
9. ______The Unity of the Church and various Epistles, e.g., LIX, 5; LX, 5; LXIX, 1.
10. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (New York: Harper and Brothers 1960), pp. 412-417.
11. Ibid., p. 417.
12. Congar, op. cit., p. 52.
13. It should be stated that this study seeks to present some of Luther’s views of the church rather than elaborate those developed in the Lutheran movement. The same applies in the case of Calvin and the Reformed movement.
14. Roland Baintan, Here I Stand (New York, Mentor Books, 1950), p. 243.
15. Martin Luther, “The Papacy at Rome,” Works of Martin Luther, Philadelphia Edition, 6 vols. (Philadelphia: Muhlenburg Press, 1943), I, p. 349.
16. Ibid.
17. Reinhold Seeburg, Textbook of the History of Doctrines (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1964), II, p. 292.
18. Luther, op. cit., p. 361
19. Ibid.
20. Roland Bainton, The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century (Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, paperback ed., 13th printing, 1965), p. 110.
21. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV, i, 7.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid., IV, i, 8.
24. Ibid., III, xxi, 1–7.
25. Ibid., IV, i, 9.
26. Ibid., IV, i, 10.
27. Ibid., IV, 1, 22.
28. Ibid., IV, xi, 1.
29. Ibid., IV, xii, 6.
30. Ibid., IV, xi, 5.
31. Seeberg, op. cit., p. 411.