Believing and Belonging
By Dwight Longenecker
I got a long-running
e-mail discussion going in one of those wonderfully odd ways God has
of putting things together.
I’d been friends at Bob Jones University with this guy called Doug. After
school we’d gone our separate ways. I ended up in England and he wound
up as an English professor in the mid-West. After twenty years we got
back in touch in a strange way. I posted a note on an internet religious
chat room asking if any Bob Jones graduates were out there wanting to
talk. Some complete stranger saw the note, took my address into work
and gave it to Doug. Doug e-mails me out of the blue and we start discussing
religion. Now three or four years later the debate is still going on.
We’re both from this very fundamentalist background,
but we’ve both got a pretty good dose of education since then. I became
an Anglican and finally took the step to become a Catholic about six
years ago. As a friend of Doug’s said, ‘The trajectory from South Carolina
through Canterbury was far more likely to end up in Rome than in Missouri.’ The
nice thing about debating with Doug is that he is actually fair, intelligent
and well read. He’s not a Catholic but he has taken the trouble to read
Catholic writings. He doesn’t agree with the Catholic Church, but at
least he knows what he doesn’t agree with. A lot of the people I’ve discussed
the church with only disagree with what they think Catholics believe.
Not Doug. He knows his stuff and now that he’s an Episcopalian he has
become pretty Catholic himself in his ways of thinking and worshipping.
He uses the Catholic daily readings, appreciates the solemn liturgy of
Holy Week, observes Lent and wishes his evangelical Episcopal Church
was maybe a little more Catholic in the way they do things.
Over the years we’ve covered all the bases.
I mean we’ve discussed everything about the Catholic Church. One
day we end up tapping away at our computers about how the Church is apostolic.
Both of us agree that our Christian faith comes to us from the apostles,
but I hadn’t really looked hard at just what that means. We did some
Bible digging and came up with some pretty interesting stuff. It all
has to do with spiritual authority on earth, where the authority comes
from, and how we know something is true.
The Foundations
Doug and I actually
sorted out the basics together. The argument goes like this: The Gospels
make an amazing claim. They
give Jesus universal divine authority. Matthew says ‘all authority has
been given to him on heaven and earth.’ (Mt.28:18) The Father has placed
everything into his hands. (Jn.3:35) He has authority over all people,
(Jn.17:2) and his authority has been given to him by his Father in heaven.
(Lk. 10:22) In his epistles Saint Paul also affirms the divine authority
which Jesus claimed. (I Cor 15:27; Eph.1:20-22; Php.2:9-10)
Jesus knew he couldn’t stay on the earth forever, and the gospels show how
Jesus intended his ministry to be continued on earth. He called twelve
men to lead his followers. So they could lead the church with power and
authority Jesus gave the apostles a share in his own divine authority.
So Jesus says the apostles are sent just as the Father sent him. (Jn
20:21) Jesus had the authority to cast out demons and teach the Truth.
In Luke 9.1-3 he gives his apostles the authority to do the same. They
are to speak the Truth with the same kind of authority Jesus had because
Jesus says whoever listens to them listens to Him (Lk. 10:16). At the
end of all four gospels Jesus gives the apostles special authority to
continue his work. In Matthew 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15 he tells them to
preach the Truth and baptise. In Luke 24:45-48 he commands them to understand
the Scriptures and preach repentance for the forgiveness of sins, and
in John 20:23 he specifically gives them his authority to forgive sins.
Jesus must have intended this ministry to continue because in Matthew
28:20 he promises to be with the apostles until the end of time. Then
in John’s gospel he promises the Holy Spirit to help with the work of
understanding the truth, (Jn.16:13) and says the Holy Spirit will remain
with the apostles forever. (Jn.14:16)
The Acts of the Apostles tells how the apostles
followed the Lord’s command
and went into the whole world to preach the truth, admonish evil and
forgive sins. As the foremost apostles, Peter and Paul take the responsibility
for proclaiming the Truth of God. Both of them claim their message comes
directly from God. The authority to preach God’s Truth is given to the
apostles, but the apostles also claim the authority to interpret the
Word of God. Paul, for example, takes the authority to forge a new interpretation
of the Old Testament which unlocks Jesus’ true identity as eternal son
of God. Peter also claims the authority to interpret Scripture the correct
way. In his second epistle he says, ‘No prophecy of Scripture is of
any private interpretation.’ If we are not to interpret the Scripture
on our own who is to interpret it for us? Jesus says the Holy Spirit
will guide us into all truth, so the Holy Spirit plays a part. But Peter
himself answers the question in the same epistle. In verse 16-18 of chapter
one, Peter claims teaching authority because he was an eyewitness of
Jesus' life and glory. Peter has the authority to interpret Scripture
because he received the truth direct from Jesus. He then says in verse
two of chapter three that the truth was spoken in the past by the holy
prophets, but that the commands are now given by Jesus Christ through
the apostles.
What is interesting here is that Peter compares
the role of the New Testament apostles to the Old Testament prophets.
As a practising Jew Peter understood
that the prophets were directly inspired by God. Their preaching was
considered to be a direct word from God to the people of God. We have
already seen that Peter considered his preaching to be 'the Word of God
which stands forever.' As such the apostles are the prophets--the God-inspired
teachers of the New Testament people of God. When Peter says, ‘No prophecy
of Scripture is of any private interpretation’ he also means that only
the prophet--that is the apostle-- is entitled and empowered by the Holy
Spirit to give the right interpretation.
Paul agrees with Peter. In Ephesians 3:5 he says
the mystery of God has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy
apostles and prophets. It is
the same Spirit-led group of men who are the foundation of the church. Paul
says in Ephesians 2:20 that his hearers are members of the church, ‘the
household of God which is built on the foundation of the apostles and
prophets with Christ Jesus as the chief corner stone.’ Jesus is the corner
stone of this church, but it is the apostles and the prophets--inspired
by God's Holy Spirit--who provide the foundation. When Saint Paul says
the ‘church is built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles’,
what is interesting is that he does not say the church is built on the
foundation of the teachings of the prophets and apostles. He says
the church is built on them. In other words, the person and his
teaching are a unity. In both the prophets and the apostles, their teaching
cannot be separated from the authority by which they teach.
The Apostolic Church
We can agree on this. Doug and
I both believe the church is built on the foundation of the apostles
and prophets. The Bible says that clearly. But now Doug and I start to
differ. Doug says his church is also founded on the apostles and prophets
because they hold to the faith which was taught by the apostles. I’m
not totally happy about this, but on the other hand I can see that a
Protestant Church that holds to the Biblical, unchanging apostolic faith
is more true than some liberal church that has sold their birthright
for a mess of pottage.
I’m holding out for bishops. Catholics believe that the bishops are the successors
of the apostles. We think the bishops give us a firm basis for authority.
The bishops are our living link with the apostles. Loyalty to them produces
unity in the church. From the very earliest days in the church this has
been true. So I cut and paste some chunks about the early church to Doug.
I remind him about a guy called Clement. Clement was a leader of the
Roman church just sixty years or so after the crucifixion. Around the
year 150 a French church leader called Irenaeus said about Clement, ‘He
not only had seen the blessed Apostles, but had also conferred with them,
and had their preaching still ringing in his ears, and their tradition
still before his eyes.’[i] I
mean, this is really early in church history. It’s even possible that
this is the same Clement who Paul calls his ‘fellow worker.’ (Phil. 4:3)
Around the year 95 Clement wrote a letter to the
Church at Corinth pleading with them to maintain unity with the properly
appointed leaders. In his
letter he explains clearly from what source those leaders had received
their authority. He writes, ‘The Apostles received the gospel for us
from the Lord Jesus Christ...and they went out full of confidence in
the Holy Spirit...and appointed their first fruits...to be bishops and
deacons. Our apostles knew there would be strife on the question of the
bishop's office, Therefore, they appointed these people already mentioned
and later made further provision that if they should fall asleep other
tested men should succeed to their ministry.’[ii]
Another Protestant friend of mine thought Clement
was just trying to boost his own authority, but there are writings
from all over the ancient world
which show that all the Christian leaders believed the same thing. They
thought they were the successors of the apostles. Ignatius of Antioch
was martyred in the year 115. He was probably instructed by Peter and
Paul during their time in Antioch. In writing to the Trallian church
he equates the church elders with apostles. ‘When you obey the bishop
as if he were Christ Jesus, you are living not in a merely human fashion,
but in Jesus Christ‘s way…It is essential therefore, to act in no way
without the bishop, just as you are doing. Rather submit even to the
presbytery (the body of elders) as to the apostles of Jesus Christ.’[iii] To the Christians at Smyrna
Ignatius writes, ‘You should follow the bishops as Jesus Christ did the
Father. Follow too the presbytery as you would the apostles …You should
regard that Eucharist as valid which is celebrated either by the bishop
or by someone he authorises.’[iv]
By the middle of the second century—less than a hundred years after the death
of the last apostle, the whole church had recognised the apostolic authority
of properly recognised and appointed bishops. The evidence comes from
North Africa, Syria, France and Italy, and they all recognise that the
proper authority in the church must be descended historically from the
apostles. I reminded Doug about Irenaeus. He was a theologian and bishop
who wrote around the year 180. Irenaeus actually knew Polycarp, who was
a disciple of the apostle John, so in Irenaeus we are just one generation
removed from the apostles themselves. According to Irenaeus it is because
the church leaders have inherited the apostolic authority that they can
interpret Scripture properly. So he writes, ‘By knowledge of the truth
we mean the teaching of the Apostles; the order of the Church as established
from earliest times throughout the world...preserved through the episcopal
succession: for to the bishops the apostles committed the care of the
church in each place which has come down to our own time safeguarded
by ...the most complete exposition...the reading of the Scriptures without
falsification and careful and consistent exposition of them--avoiding
both rashness and blasphemy.’[v] Elsewhere
he says that the bishops of the church not only received the apostolic
teaching, but the apostolic authority to define and defend that teaching. ‘We
can enumerate those who were appointed bishops in the churches by the
apostles and their successors down to our own day…they [the apostles]
were handing over to them their own office of doctrinal authority.’[vi]
So I come back to Doug insisting that part of the
apostolic faith he wants to hold on to actually includes having bishops.
Its clear isn’t it? For
the first generation of Christians the apostolic faith meant being part
of a church which not only taught the apostolic faith, but had leaders
whose authority descended historically from the apostles. According to
the early evidence, the church was organised with a chief elder (bishop)
in each city, and with elders (priests) to oversee the local congregations.
The priests and bishops were assisted by deacons who also exercised a
teaching and ministry role. Even in those early days there were some
groups who broke off from the established apostolic authority to do their
own thing. Ignatius called them to return to the unified church led by
the apostolically appointed leaders. Irenaeus insisted that the fullest
expression of Christianity was to be found in the churches which traced
their authority right back to the apostles themselves. He says of those
who broke away from the apostolic church, ‘we challenge them by an appeal
to that tradition which derives from the Apostles, and which is preserved
in the churches by the succession of presbyters…Those who wish to see
the truth can observe in every church the tradition of the Apostles…It
is our duty to obey those bishops who are in the church, who have their
succession from the Apostles, as we have shown, who with their succession
in the episcopate have received the sure spiritual gift of truth according
to the pleasure of the Father.’[vii]
Bishop’s Move
We debate back and forth—the
computers are hot with our discussion on the issue. I think Doug is
finally agreeing
that bishops are a good thing. Finally we come up with a kind of synthesis.
Maybe a church can be apostolic in four different ways. These four different
ways sort of accumulate so you might have one or two apostolic traits,
but its best to have as many as possible. After all, why have mere Christianity
when you can have more Christianity?
The first and most basic level of apostolicity
is faithfulness to essentials of the apostolic teaching. In other words,
if a non-Catholic Christian
believes the simple gospel, and accepts the ‘old time religion’ it can
be said that he shares to a certain degree in the apostolic faith. Inasmuch
as any Christian repents of his sin and trusts Jesus Christ as his saviour
he participates to some extent in the apostolic faith. Both Doug and
I are happy about this. Its inclusive. Nobody is left out.
This is fine as far as it goes, but there is more
on offer than that. There are some other questions to ask too. The
individual who repents of his
sins and trusts Jesus Christ as his saviour is taking part in the apostolic
faith, but where does he turn for his answers and his doctrine? Without
another authority he’s on his own. Also, if there is nothing else but
personal experience, that single individual is cut off from a large measure
of the apostolic faith. It is a bit like a person looking through a keyhole
into a ballroom. They certainly see part of the ballroom, and what they
see is true enough; but there is far more to be seen than that. According
to the New Testament, individual believers have to be baptised into the
body of Christ, and the body of Christ has recognised leaders. In other
words, the person looking through the keyhole has to come into the ballroom
and join the party. A second level of the apostolic faith means an individual
joins a church and so participates in some sort of recognised ordained
ministry. If an individual joins a church with an ordained ministry,
or if he or she is ordained, then by virtue of that fact they are sharing
in the second degree of apostolicity. Almost all Christians belong to
a church with some sort of ordained ministry, and that ministry is usually
patterned on the guidelines in the New Testament. Because they belong
to a church with an ordained ministry, most Christians also share in
this second degree of apostolicity. That’s fine. Doug’s happy. I’m happy.
We’re still including people rather than excluding. This means any Christian
who goes to church probably shares in a little bit more of the apostolic
faith than just the lonely wandering Christian.
Two levels is better than one, but there’s more. I keep reminding Doug that
the New Testament and the documents of the early church show that the
apostles established a recognised historical succession for the church
leadership. The historical succession is important because through it
a particular church claims a living link with the apostles, and therefore
claims that their teaching and authority structure is part of that church
founded two thousand years ago. This is a kind of pedigree. What’s more
likely to be true? A Church founded two thousand years ago or one founded
two hundred years ago? The third level of the apostolic faith means
a denomination or individual shares in some way in apostolic succession.
In other words, those churches that have bishops who claim historical
succession from the apostles may share in this third level of apostolicity.
The Orthodox, the different Anglican groups, and some other Catholic-minded
Christian denominations would all claim to share in this third level
of apostolic authority. Even if their claims to apostolic succession
are spurious, their desire to be a part of this higher level of apostolicity
shows an awareness and a sharing in something greater. This is good.
Doug and I are still happy about including everyone. The stress is not
on who is out, but on who is most completely in.
Christians can share in one level of apostolicity
by believing the simple gospel message. They go ‘further up and further in’ when they join a church
with an ordained ministry. They penetrate further into the mystery of
the apostolic Church once they have entered a denomination which claims
to share the historic connection with the apostles through the ministry
of bishops. But I suggested that there are four levels of apostolicity.
Now I’m pushing things. I want a fourth level because this is where the
rubber meets the road. The fourth level is being a part of the historic
Catholic Church. The Anglicans claim apostolic succession. Eastern Orthodox
enjoy a high degree of apostolicity, but only the Catholic Church expresses
historic apostolic authority in a universal way. This is a whole ‘nother
ball game, but it is enough to say that in the Catholic Church there
is a fullness of the apostolic faith which is not present elsewhere.
In the Catholic Church there is a universal authority connected right
back to the apostles Peter and Paul which is recognisable and dynamic
in the world today.
This universal
authority is both faithful to the apostolic faith, and yet able to apply
that faith to the needs of the present day. I cut and paste a snippet
from John Henry Newman over to Doug. It comes from Newman’s Essay
on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Like most of Newman’s stuff
it is not exactly pithy and punchy. Long sentences and big words. But
its worth wading through. Here it is:
If
Christianity is both social and dogmatic, and intended for all ages,
it must, humanly
speaking, have an infallible expounder, else you will secure unity
of form at the loss of unity of doctrine, or unity of doctrine at the
loss of unity of form; you will have to choose between a comprehension
of opinions and a resolution into parties; between latidudinarian and
sectarian error. You must accept the whole or reject the whole… it
is trifling to receive all but something which is as integral as any
other portion. Thus it would be trifling indeed to accept everything
Catholic except the head of the body of Christ here on earth.
In
other words, if you don’t accept the universal apostolic authority of the successor
of Peter, then you only have a partial apostolic faith. You don’t have
what Jesus expected—one shepherd for the one flock. (Jn. 10:16) Without
that single voice of authority Newman says you will fall into one of
two errors. Either you will sacrifice agreement on doctrine in order
to maintain a semblance of unity (this is what many of the mainstream
Protestant denominations opt for) or you will have agreement on doctrine
and practice, but end up in a little sect. (This is what the independent
Protestant churches choose). The only way to have both agreement on doctrine
and inner unity is to have a central, recognised authority.
In the Catholic
Church this authority is historical, Biblical and apostolic. It is the
successor of Peter. When Catholics therefore say they believe in ‘One
Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ it is not just an idea. It is a person
who lives and speaks to us. He is the successor of the one on whom Christ
founded the Church; (Mt.16.18) the one to whom Jesus entrusted his authority
as the Good Shepherd of the Sheep. (Jn.21.15-17)
Not by the Faith Alone
This phrase
has been batted around by Doug and me a fair bit. But usually the ‘not
by faith alone’ tag is used in reference to our debates about faith and
works. But the ‘not by faith alone’ tag works here too. It suddenly dawns
on me at church one day while we’re saying the Nicene Creed. We don’t
actually profess to believe in ‘One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith.’ We
profess to believe in ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.’ We’d
been discussing how somebody could profess to believe in the apostolic
faith, but the early Christians didn’t use that term. Instead they spoke
about believing in ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.’ The
penny dropped, as we say in England. Bing! The light went on.
My fingers
were itching to get back to the computer. I said to Doug, ‘You can’t
really have the apostolic faith unless you are in the apostolic church.’ I
was happy to concede that a single person on a desert island could repent
of their sins and believe and trust in Jesus and therefore hold to the
apostolic faith. Even so, it is necessary for that person, as soon as
possible, to join the church and belong to the body of Christ. The branch
cut off from the vine withers and dies.
From the very
beginning the faith has never been separated from membership in the family
of God. The Jews couldn’t conceive of following Jehovah for instance,
without also being a Jew. Likewise, it is impossible to really hold to
the apostolic faith without belonging to the apostolic church. To simply
hold to the faith without belonging to the Church is playing head games.
Belonging to the church makes it real. Saying you are a Christian without
belonging to the Church is like saying you love your fiancée, but you
never spending time with her and don’t intend to marry her. Actions speak
louder than words, and they speak a lot louder than thoughts and ideas.
When we say
we believe in ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.’ We mean that
belonging and believing are part of the same thing. Belonging puts flesh
on believing. The Church is the way we live out the apostolic faith.
That’s why a Catholic bishop once said to me in all modesty, ‘I am not
a successor to the apostles. I am an apostle.’ In other words,
in the fullness of the Catholic Church the church of the apostles is
alive in the world today. Do you want to ‘get back’ to the New Testament
Church? Why not join the church to whom St Paul wrote the letter of Romans?
To live in
this church is not simply a matter of choosing a Church we happen to
like best. In fact, I tell Doug I’m a bit jealous of his being an Episcopalian. The
Episcopalians sure have a nice liturgy. They also have nice people and
nice buildings. I didn’t join the Catholic Church because it was the
church I liked best. If truth be told, I actually liked the Anglican
church best. I also didn’t join the Catholic Church because I thought
it was a humanly perfect Church. Anybody who takes a glance at church
history can lay that one to rest. I didn’t join the Catholic Church because
I thought it was the perfect Church, but because I discovered that it
was the true Church.
Dwight Longenecker lives
in England where he works for The St Barnabas Society and as a freelance
writer and broadcaster. He is the editor of The Path to Rome, and
his new book, Challenging Catholics, is a debate with an Anglican
evangelical. It is published in Autumn 2001.
