Rooms and ruminations
I recently was pointed towards a Catholic blog article, here, that asked the following question of modern Protestants:
[I]f you took a time machine back to the millenium from 200-1200, what Church would you be in communion with?
I’m not asking about if you were a seventh century peasant who’d never known about any other form of Christianity. I’m asking about you, dear reader, today, knowing what you know now. If you could hop in the TARDIS and jump back in time, what church’s doorway would you darken, come Sunday? Would you treat the Church Fathers as your coreligionists? Or as heretics, even if (perhaps) well-meaning ones?
The author goes on to suggest that if you wouldn't join the Church because heresy, well, you probably can't appeal to any early Christians for support - and if you would, then why aren't you Catholic still today?
There's a number of what seem to me to be issues with this framing; one of the largest is that it assumes the Catholic Church of, say, 200 AD is essentially the same as the one today. (There's at least good reason to suspect it wasn't: doctrines such as, say, the perpetual virginity of Mary and even papal infallibility don't get officially adopted for a long time afterwards, to my understanding.) It also suggests that, in either past or present, the choice of whether or not to be part of the Catholic Church is yours - where, if you publicly argued for your Protestant beliefs, history suggests you're going to be unwelcome in the Church whether you want to be or not.
I argued some of the above in the comments to the article, and got a very polite, courteous reply that, in part, said:
[I]n the post, I’m explicitly talking about “full communion” (although I admit that I wasn’t consistent in using the phrasing).
And you appear to be arguing that you can be in “full communion” with us (and other Protestant denominations), even while “treating [us] as people with what seem to be some fairly foundational mistakes in your theology.” I’m curious as to how this works: how we can be in “full communion” without being members of the same visible Church, adhering to the same beliefs (even on foundational issues), etc. That seems to be contrary to the very meaning of the term “full communion.” In your view, are you in any fuller communion with other Baptists than you are with non-Baptists? And according to your argument, would even the excommunicated remain in full communion?
That's the part that's really gotten me to thinking. And the answer, I think, is: I don't accept the idea of degrees of spiritual communion.
C.S. Lewis famously described what he called "mere Christianity" - the core doctrines and beliefs on which all Christians should agree - as a great hall, with all the Christian denominations that accepted that core as rooms branching off of the hall. I like that metaphor, but I think I might step it one level further - I don't believe that denominations, as spiritual entities, actually exist.
Let me be clear as to what I'm not saying, there. I'm not saying that they don't exist, period - there is, for instance, an organizational body called the Southern Baptist Convention - and I'm certainly not arguing that all denominations are equivalent, or that it really doesn't matter which one you choose. It does! Our theology affects all aspects of our lives, and small changes can have pretty significant consequences.
But I think that's all the rooms are: organizations, and attached bundles of belief. They don't exist spiritually: that is, from the vantage-point of heaven, there are no rooms. The body of Christ is whole and undivided, made up of all those who professed Christ, whatever their affiliations. Some members of the body get more or less stuff right, sure - and some do more or less stuff right, as well - but they're all the body. They're all linked together with the head, and as they commune with him, they're also in communion with each other.
(Assuming, in Lewis's metaphor, that they "pass through the hall" - that is, that they agree on the absolutely essential salvific truths, and corresponding surrender to Christ, that make you part of the body in the first place.)
So when I say, "I'm a Baptist," I think what I'm really doing is using a kind of shorthand: "This is the organization of which I'm a member. Other members of that organization tend to have churches of a particular kind and believe in a certain way, and my preference is for churches and in particular beliefs of that sort." But when I say, "I'm a Christian," I do something different: I describe an absolutely crucial component of my spiritual state - that my hope for salvation is dependent on the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, and that in his grace he has extended his righteousness to me.
"Baptist" isn't part of my spiritual state - it's just a belief-and-preference bundle.
But, see, I think I'm starting to realize that when a Catholic says, "I'm Catholic," they mean something rather different. If you're part of the RCC, you do view that as a component of your spiritual state, because you believe the Catholic Church is uniquely more than an organizational body - it's a direct working of God in the same way that, say, Scripture is. From that perspective, it makes perfect sense to talk about being "in full communion": other denominations can be graded on how close they are to the Catholic Church, and (only through that Church) to Christ. In Lewis's metaphor, the hall is the beliefs of mere Christianity, with denominations branching off in all directions; in Catholicism, I think, the hall may actually be the Roman Catholic Church.
(I don't mean by any of this to say that Catholicism assumes no one from other denominations will be saved - only that, if they are, it's because they're included as partial members of the RCC. Their rooms are close enough to the hall to be counted as part of it.)
The problem, then, is that if you ask (say) a Baptist, "Would you be in full communion with the Catholic Church, even believing as you do," you're asking him to think about the issue as a Catholic: as someone who admits to grades of connection within the body. The Baptist doesn't look at his denomination the way a Catholic looks at hers, and so his answer might be:
"I absolutely believe that I would be in communion with the members of the Catholic Church, while still believing that they're wrong about much of the details of Christianity. I'm not sure, though, that they'd believe they were in communion with me."
***
Apologies for any details mis-communicated or misunderstood; I'd be happy to amend appropriately.
[I]f you took a time machine back to the millenium from 200-1200, what Church would you be in communion with?
I’m not asking about if you were a seventh century peasant who’d never known about any other form of Christianity. I’m asking about you, dear reader, today, knowing what you know now. If you could hop in the TARDIS and jump back in time, what church’s doorway would you darken, come Sunday? Would you treat the Church Fathers as your coreligionists? Or as heretics, even if (perhaps) well-meaning ones?
The author goes on to suggest that if you wouldn't join the Church because heresy, well, you probably can't appeal to any early Christians for support - and if you would, then why aren't you Catholic still today?
There's a number of what seem to me to be issues with this framing; one of the largest is that it assumes the Catholic Church of, say, 200 AD is essentially the same as the one today. (There's at least good reason to suspect it wasn't: doctrines such as, say, the perpetual virginity of Mary and even papal infallibility don't get officially adopted for a long time afterwards, to my understanding.) It also suggests that, in either past or present, the choice of whether or not to be part of the Catholic Church is yours - where, if you publicly argued for your Protestant beliefs, history suggests you're going to be unwelcome in the Church whether you want to be or not.
I argued some of the above in the comments to the article, and got a very polite, courteous reply that, in part, said:
[I]n the post, I’m explicitly talking about “full communion” (although I admit that I wasn’t consistent in using the phrasing).
And you appear to be arguing that you can be in “full communion” with us (and other Protestant denominations), even while “treating [us] as people with what seem to be some fairly foundational mistakes in your theology.” I’m curious as to how this works: how we can be in “full communion” without being members of the same visible Church, adhering to the same beliefs (even on foundational issues), etc. That seems to be contrary to the very meaning of the term “full communion.” In your view, are you in any fuller communion with other Baptists than you are with non-Baptists? And according to your argument, would even the excommunicated remain in full communion?
That's the part that's really gotten me to thinking. And the answer, I think, is: I don't accept the idea of degrees of spiritual communion.
C.S. Lewis famously described what he called "mere Christianity" - the core doctrines and beliefs on which all Christians should agree - as a great hall, with all the Christian denominations that accepted that core as rooms branching off of the hall. I like that metaphor, but I think I might step it one level further - I don't believe that denominations, as spiritual entities, actually exist.
Let me be clear as to what I'm not saying, there. I'm not saying that they don't exist, period - there is, for instance, an organizational body called the Southern Baptist Convention - and I'm certainly not arguing that all denominations are equivalent, or that it really doesn't matter which one you choose. It does! Our theology affects all aspects of our lives, and small changes can have pretty significant consequences.
But I think that's all the rooms are: organizations, and attached bundles of belief. They don't exist spiritually: that is, from the vantage-point of heaven, there are no rooms. The body of Christ is whole and undivided, made up of all those who professed Christ, whatever their affiliations. Some members of the body get more or less stuff right, sure - and some do more or less stuff right, as well - but they're all the body. They're all linked together with the head, and as they commune with him, they're also in communion with each other.
(Assuming, in Lewis's metaphor, that they "pass through the hall" - that is, that they agree on the absolutely essential salvific truths, and corresponding surrender to Christ, that make you part of the body in the first place.)
So when I say, "I'm a Baptist," I think what I'm really doing is using a kind of shorthand: "This is the organization of which I'm a member. Other members of that organization tend to have churches of a particular kind and believe in a certain way, and my preference is for churches and in particular beliefs of that sort." But when I say, "I'm a Christian," I do something different: I describe an absolutely crucial component of my spiritual state - that my hope for salvation is dependent on the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, and that in his grace he has extended his righteousness to me.
"Baptist" isn't part of my spiritual state - it's just a belief-and-preference bundle.
But, see, I think I'm starting to realize that when a Catholic says, "I'm Catholic," they mean something rather different. If you're part of the RCC, you do view that as a component of your spiritual state, because you believe the Catholic Church is uniquely more than an organizational body - it's a direct working of God in the same way that, say, Scripture is. From that perspective, it makes perfect sense to talk about being "in full communion": other denominations can be graded on how close they are to the Catholic Church, and (only through that Church) to Christ. In Lewis's metaphor, the hall is the beliefs of mere Christianity, with denominations branching off in all directions; in Catholicism, I think, the hall may actually be the Roman Catholic Church.
(I don't mean by any of this to say that Catholicism assumes no one from other denominations will be saved - only that, if they are, it's because they're included as partial members of the RCC. Their rooms are close enough to the hall to be counted as part of it.)
The problem, then, is that if you ask (say) a Baptist, "Would you be in full communion with the Catholic Church, even believing as you do," you're asking him to think about the issue as a Catholic: as someone who admits to grades of connection within the body. The Baptist doesn't look at his denomination the way a Catholic looks at hers, and so his answer might be:
"I absolutely believe that I would be in communion with the members of the Catholic Church, while still believing that they're wrong about much of the details of Christianity. I'm not sure, though, that they'd believe they were in communion with me."
***
Apologies for any details mis-communicated or misunderstood; I'd be happy to amend appropriately.