Christ's Spotless Bride -- The Attributes of the Church (Part Six)

Having considered the marks of the church, we now move on to consider the attributes of the church.

There are four classical attributes of the church as expressed in the Nicene Creed which are held in common by all major Christian traditions. These are: 1). Unity, 2). Holiness, 3). Catholicity, and 4). Apostolicity. The Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Reformation churches all confess these same attributes, yet understand them in fundamentally different ways. The Lutherans, for example, add “invisibility” to the four marks expressed above as a polemic against Rome’s claim of the visibility of the true church (Rome claims to be the true church because of its visibility).[1]

James Bannerman, a Scottish Presbyterian, who wrote what many consider to be the definitive volume on Presbyterian polity (The Church of Christ) offers a number of reasons why discussing the marks of the church should be done before considering the attributes of the church. He lists the four attributes of “Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity, and Apostolicity.” But then notes that these “belong . . . to the Christian Church, in consequence of the Church holding and professing the true faith of Christ.”[1] Herman Bavinck also considers the marks before addressing the church’s attributes since, as he contends, it is important to distinguish a true church from a false church since this determination defines how we are to understand the attributes of the church.[2]

As some Reformed theologians point out, the classical attributes are not merely descriptive but also function as exhortations. According to Heyns, unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity “provide, not only a factual description of the current situation, but also a factual command: they set the ideals to be realized, the objectives for which the Church must strive. They are both a gift and a mandate.” Heyns also adds that these attributes are to be viewed in terms of the already/not yet.[4] As attributes of the church militant, they point ahead to the church triumphant in which all four attributes will be fully realized.

The seminal biblical text when discussing the attributes of the church is 1 Corinthians 1:1–2. Paul opens the letter with an important declaration about the nature of the church.

I Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and our brother Sosthenes, To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours.

First, Paul speaks of unity as an attribute of the church when he identifies the church in Corinth as a “church of God,” composed of those who are called together with all who call on the name of the Lord Jesus. Second, Paul identifies holiness as an attribute. Paul says the Corinthians are the sanctified but also called to be holy. This speaks both of the church’s status (holy) but also the importance of reflecting such holiness in the life of the church (aspirational). Third, Paul speaks of the church’s catholicity. The apostle declares that the Corinthian Christians are called together with all those who in every place call on the name of Christ. Finally, Paul speaks of the church’s apostolicity–they are authoritatively addressed by Paul, who was called by the will of God to be an apostle.

The First Attribute in the Creed: Unity

Roman Catholicism understands unity in terms of the church as an external, visible organization united in the Pope. “Where the Pope is, there is the church” (ubi papa ibi ecclesia). Also, “where the Pope is, there is the true church, pure doctrine, and apostolic succession.”[5] In Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s Called to Communion, the second chapter begins with Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) connecting the primacy of Peter with the unity of the church. That is not accidental. At the end of the chapter he states: “The Roman primacy is not an invention of the popes, but an essential element of ecclesial unity that goes back to the Lord and was developed faithfully in the nascent Church.”[6]

The Eastern Orthodox understand unity in terms of visible communion of the saints in the Eucharist. Timothy (Kallistos) Ware (an Anglican convert to Eastern Orthodoxy) writes:

In its teaching upon the visible unity of the Church, Orthodoxy stands far closer to Roman Catholicism than to the Protestant world. But if we ask how this visible unity is maintained, Rome and the east give somewhat different answers. For Rome the unifying principle in the Church is the Pope whose jurisdiction extends over the whole body, whereas Orthodox do not believe any bishop to be endowed with universal jurisdiction. What then holds the Church together? Orthodox answer, the act of communion in the sacraments . . . . The Church is not monarchical in structure, centered round a single hierarch; it is collegial, formed by the communion of many hierarchs with one another, and of each hierarch with the members of his flock. The act of communion therefore forms the criterion for membership of the Church.

Ware concludes that “Orthodoxy, believing that the Church on earth has remained and must remain visibly one, naturally also believes itself to be that one visible Church. [7]

The Reformed Understanding of the Attribute of Unity

The Reformed understand the attribute of unity in terms of both the invisible and visible church. Members of the invisible church enjoy common union with Christ, by one Spirit, through one faith, hope, and love (cf. Ephesians 4:5-6). God calls Christians to strive to give expression to this unity visibly, in part, but not exclusively, through external organization. The Belgic Confession, Article 27 (of the Catholic Christian Church), states “We believe and confess One single catholic or universal church—a holy congregation and gathering of true Christian believers, awaiting their entire salvation in Jesus Christ being washed by his blood, and sanctified and sealed by the Holy Spirit.” Throughout article 27, the Belgic Confession speaks of the church in the singular. The article concludes by confessing that the church is “joined and united in heart and will, in one and the same Spirit, by the power of faith.”

In regard to the invisible church, Bannerman writes that the unity which is characteristic of the church is “a spiritual unity.” The church’s members are, “one and all of them, united to Christ, and united to each other in the communion of the Holy Ghost.” Regarding the visible church, Bannerman contends, “its members are united together in an outward fellowship of privilege and ordinance . . . by means of an external profession . . . .” Its unity “is lower in its character; for it is an outward and not a spiritual union. And it is less complete in degree . . . .”[8]

In speaking of such spiritual unity, Herman Bavinck adds . . .

This unity, though primarily spiritual in character, nevertheless exists objectively and really, and it does not remain completely invisible. It manifests itself outwardly—albeit in a very imperfect way—and at least to some degree comes to light in that which all Christian churches have in common. No Christianity exists above or beneath religious differences, but there is indeed a Christianity present amid religious differences . . . . That which unites all true Christians is always more than that which separates them.[9]

According to Louis Berkhof,

Protestants assert that the unity of the Church is not primarily of an external, but of an internal and spiritual character. It is the unity of the mystical body of Jesus Christ, of which all believers are members . . . . All who belong to the Church share in the same faith, are cemented together by the common bond of love, and have the same glorious outlook upon the future. This inner unity seeks and also acquires, relatively speaking, outward expression in the profession and Christian conduct of believers, in their public worship of the same God in Christ, and in their participation in the same sacraments.

Berkhof concludes that unity applies to the visible as well as invisible church, but cautions that the Reformers “did not find the bond of union in the ecclesiastical organization of the Church, but in the true preaching of the Word and the right administration of the sacraments.”[10] Michael Horton’s discussion of unity focuses on the unity of Christ and his church without their being merged, as in some Totus Christus conceptions. Totus Christus refers to the head and the body–the whole Christ.[11]

Biblical Considerations

Everyone agrees that the church is one, but there’s strong disagreement as to what, exactly, that means. What does Scripture say about the church’s unity? First, there’s strong evidence for the Reformed insistence that the foundation of unity lies in believers’ union with Christ, by the Spirit, through a common bond of faith, hope, and love. These things are facts and reflections of our covenant theology. A number of biblical tests bear this out . . .

• John 17:20–2: “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, hat they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” Jesus prays to his Father that all believers may be one. Whatever this unity is, it is evidently a divine gift. If Jesus our High Priest prays for such unity, then we can safely assume the church possesses this oneness in some sense. One aspect of this unity is that it is enjoyed “in us,” i.e., in union with the Triune God.

• 1 Corinthians 12: Unity in diversity is a crucial theme as Paul likens the church to a body with many parts. In the midst of the variety of gifts, service, and activities, there is “the same Spirit,” “the same Lord,” “the same God,” and a “common good” (12:4-7). It is “one and the same Spirit” that makes the church “one body” (12:11-13).

• Ephesians 2:11-22: The unity Paul speaks of has been accomplished once-and-for-all in Christ’s “flesh,” “through the cross.” It is a fact. Paul refers to the Jew-Gentile church in the singular (as a household, structure, holy temple, and dwelling place for God)—it has been built on the apostolic foundation, by the Spirit.

• Ephesians 4:1-16: The “unity of the Spirit” is something to be maintained (4:3), which presupposes that it already exists. Paul tells us what it is: one body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father (Ephesians 4:3-6).

Many of these texts (and others) indicate that the unity we share in fact has all sorts of visible, practical consequences. As things we do, however, they are also exhortations and aspirations in addition to being assertions of fact.

• In John 17:20-21, Jesus speaks of believers’ unity as being like the unity of Father and Son. Obviously, this isn’t an ontological unity of substance. Presumably, it reflects the unity of purpose and love between Father and Son mentioned often in John. This points to something expressed in action. The purpose of the unity is that “the world may believe that you have sent me.” How would the world know this without outward expression?

• In 1 Corinthians 12:21-26, the given unity by God to his people means we all ought to honor and care for each other, and to suffer and rejoice with one another.

• In Ephesians 4:1-16, Paul’s statements about the unity that “is” in Ephesians 4 is part of a larger section calling Christians to live a life worthy of their calling and to bear with one another (4:1-2). They must maintain the given unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace (4:3)—this sort of unity is something to be pursued. The unity of the faith and of knowledge of Christ, mature manhood, etc., are something toward which we grow; i.e., they are aspirational.

Although baptism and the Supper are gifts of God, we are called to perform these rituals and hence to give outward expression to our unity.

Heyns speaks of unity of fellowship as follows: “Those who are Christ’s Church experience a common fellowship in suffering (Heb 10:33), in consolation (2 Cor 1:7), in adversity and endurance (Rev 1:9), in continual intercession for one another (Eph 6:18; Rom 8:26-27; 15:30; 1 Thess 5:25), and in diligent mutual care (1 Cor 12:26).”[12]

While unity of organization of some sort, is surely one of the things we strive for, the elements of aspirational unity described above do not depend upon a single, worldwide ecclesiastical structure centered in the Papacy–a standard Roman polemic.

The discussions of unity in 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 2, 4, both mention church officers, but as gifts to his church that is one (1 Corinthians 12:28-30; Ephesians 4:11-16). Nothing in these texts suggests that the officers constitute the unity as Rome believes. Rather, officers serve the one church.

In 1 Timothy 3:1-13, which gives qualifications for officers, nothing points in a different direction. If anything, it indicates that the church as household of God already exists, and the way to behave in it is to appoint qualified officers (3:14-15). Similar in Titus 1:5-9.

Obviously, it would be impossible to express our unity without believers being brought together in institutional structures. But a single, worldwide body is not necessary for such unity. Christians and churches can express much unity across ecclesiastical lines. We can and do participate in each others’ sacraments, etc.

Practical Implications

It is hard to deny that the church has failed in a great many ways to pursue this unity. It has often been quick to fight and divide and too content to live with division. Bavinck puts it starkly:

As Christians we cannot humble ourselves deeply enough over the schisms and discord that have existed all through the centuries in the church of Christ. It is a sin against God, in conflict with Christ’s . . . prayer . . . and caused by the darkness of our minds and the lovelessness of our hearts.[13]

This is why schism is such a serious matter. Bavinck points out that “guilty of schism are those who, though leaving the foundation of doctrine intact, nevertheless break with the church on subordinate points of worship or church government.”[14]

But what are our obligations in our present circumstances in light of the importance of unity? To begin with, confessional Reformed churches in North America have formalized ecumenical relations one with another (so-called “ecclesiastical fellowship), they have formed NAPARC, and they engage in joint ventures (e.g., Great Commission Publications, Trinity Psalter Hymnal), welcome each other’s ministers to their pulpits, fonts, and tables, etc. Is there obligation to pursue more?

What about Kuyperian ideas on the pluriformity (diversity of practice along cultural lines) of the church? Berkhof notes that “the only attempt that was made so far to unite the whole Church in one great external organization, did not prove productive of good results.” He adds,

it is quite possible that the inherent riches of the organism of the Church find better and fuller expression in the present variety of Churches than they would in a single external organization. This does not mean, of course, that the Church should not strive for a greater measure of external unity. The ideal should always be to give the most adequate expression to the unity of the Church.[15]

Heyns doesn’t like most arguments in favor of the pluriformity of the church, but he does think it’s valid as based on national diversity.[16]

Next time, we take up the attributes of holiness, catholicity,and apostolicity.

_____________________________

[1] See Franz Pieper, Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis: Concordia, 1970), III.408 ff.

[2] Bannerman, The Church of Christ, 70.

[3] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4:307-325.

[4] Heyns, The Church, 112-13.

[5] Cited in Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4.285; 4.323.

[6] Ratzinger, Called to Communion, 72.

[7] Ware, The Orthodox Church, 238-39.

[8] Bannerman, The Church of Christ, 53-54.

[9] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4.321.

[10] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 573.

[11] Horton, People and Place, chapter 6.

[12] Heyns, The Church, 119.

[13] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4.316.

[14] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4.319.

[15] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 573-74.

[16] Heyns, The Church, 125-126.