Hi, Thomas and happy birthday!
The doctrine of the Body of Christ derive from the Passion Discourse in St John, and notably from St Paul:
"I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called: With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit: as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all."
Ephesians 4:1-6 (and in Romans, 1 Corinthians and Colossians)
The Church is the Body of Christ, but that's the problem, isn't it ... where there are two or more denominations, then logically there are two in body, and where there are disagreements on doctrine, two in spirit, so the unity that was in Christ is lost.
I agree with the Biblical passage, but I don't know that I think that two denominations
necessarily yields two in body. I think different people have different ways of worship, so it can yield the appearance of diversity but in fact, if you look beyond, there is unity in direction. (I mean differences in worship in terms of size of congregation, structure of worship, outside in nature or inside a building, type of music, etc.)
I think there is more difficulty with disagreements on doctrine, but I think unless we chuck doctrine entirely, there's no way around it. There is just a whole lot of doctrine that is not directly found in the Bible, and sufficient topics that are either vaguely addressed or addressed not at all that inevitably some disagreement will arise. I think we need to get away from thinking about God so much and get into worship more. That is, do rather than think. I think the Body of Christ would be one in spirit if we all focused more on loving God and loving our neighbor as ourself, on doing what Christ called us to do (healing, providing shelter, food, etc.) and if we passed on to others His words and life (through the Bible) rather than attempting to also pass on all our thoughts about what it means. What I mean, is that I can offer to others a doctrine (which is to say, thoughts about the word of God) or I can offer to others God's word.
Much of the disagreement I see is on stuff that has little or no practical purpose for actually following Christ's teachings. What is heaven and hell like? Tithe 10% to the church, or 10% to charity in general, or whatever you can afford, or? And so forth. Churches seem to split for inconsequential (in the big picture) reasons, and at the heart of it is always that people are more attached to their "self," their identity all wrapped up in being right, in their ideas... than actually loving other people and serving Christ "in His distressing disguise" as Mother Theresa puts it.
I really think we (as the Body of Christ) would be much better off, much more unified, if we learned better how to individually and collectively leave behind our self-indulgent need to be "right" and validated. Imagine if instead of Christians meeting and asking the series of usual questions: "Where do you attend church? Well what do they think of homosexuality? How about abortion? Is it modern music or traditional? Who are you all voting for in the fall?" they said something like: "You follow Christ too? That is wonderful!" and then left it at that and started out together in feeding and sheltering the homeless, adopting kids, picking up trash, other useful activities... Focusing on
being the Light of the World rather than discussing who is in and who is out, and what the Light means, and whether "world" is the right translation of what was originally meant.
Perhaps I'm just too simple in spiritual matters.
The institution was there, however, and they looked to it for guidance and instruction.
I think maybe, for me, there is an issue of institution vs. community. I define the two differently. An institution implies an authority that rules over some aspect of people's lives. Ordinary people interact with but do not run the institution. Decisions are made by those higher up in the heirarchy. Institutions are held together structurally with roles, offices, rules. A community is a group that has a unifying, common interest and that mutually supports one another. A community has tradition, a loose cultural and relational bond that is nevertheless normally much stronger than that of an institution. An institution is impersonal; a community is deeply personal. I tend to think of the Church as
ideally a community, not an institution. I think we should be led by leaders among equals, not heirarchically, and that decisions should be made by consensus (and I don't mean democratically, or by voting, but rather to wait until the Spirit makes it clear to the group what is appropriate). I feel that the Church should be one body in direction, but local in its relational scope, so that it is able to function without institutional coldness and heirarchical structure.
In Acts, written before the close of the century, we have the election of a diaconate, so already the threefold structure of bishop, priest, deacon. The structure was far more formalised than people generally realise.
I think there is a difference between roles and formal structures. A shaman is a role, a part-time religious practioner. I'm more for our spiritual leaders between leaders among equals than formally invested with more authority than others. It is even fine to have a leader of leaders. But the problem is if we begin to see some as higher and others lower in their spiritual capacity (and alternatively, their capacity to be wrong).
I would say that grace is transmitted via Scripture if one is open to it, and there is no better way than to read Scripture with yourself in the picture, as it were, as if the words of Jesus are addressed to you in dialogue lectio divina ... the reading of Scripture then becomes a Sacramental Act ... indeed much like prayer ... and often praying consists in reading Scripture.
As an esoterist I would say that reciting Scripture — albeit in English and translation — engages certain rhythms and harmonics of thought beyond language and that is, in a very real sense, is an order of engagement with the divine beyond the ordinary.
When Jesus gave us The Lord's Prayer, he knew what He was doing. That prayer opens a channel direct, as it were, to the Divine. The fact that there are two versions in Scripture, and they differ, points (if you believe) to something beyond the spoken word.
Now if someone never heard that prayer, are all channels closed? No, for the 'cry of the heart' is always heard ... but that is not to say therefore, there is nothing special about the Lord's Prayer.
The study of theology, for example, is not a Sacramental Act in the same way. The fact that I spend x hours in reading/researching/writing, does not 'count' towards my prayer life. The former does not replace the latter. I pray before I commence my studies however, that by the Grace of God they might bear fruit for the Church.
I couldn't agree more. This is partially why I wish I could find a church that keeps it simple: collective reading of the Word (Bible), worship (signing hymns, etc.), communion, and collective prayer (and not prayer that is not aligned with scripture- optimally, I think collective prayer would
be passages of scripture).
I think what makes it difficult for me is that most churches I go to spend at least 1/3 to 1/2 of the time I am there with a person giving all their own opinions and ideas about what the Word means and what I should be doing/thinking/voting rather than sticking to the Word itself. I really could do without sermons entirely (I think this sort of thing is better left to small group discussion and study) and if there is to be a sermon, it should stick to encouraging us to love God and our neighbor.
Worship should be collective and unified, but
study should be personal and dialectical. Interpretation of the Word, study of it-- these things should be a discussion among believers, which can certainly include a pastor or priest, but should not be conducted in the manner of "open up congregation's brains, dump in my knowledge." Study should engage each Christian in delving personally into the Word and growing as much as possible in one's capacity to read with both reason and inspiration from the Spirit-- interpretation should not be spoon-fed.
Just my opinion, of course.
But there will be no physical reality in the world, in the flesh ... we are into Docetism and gnosticism here ... and we have no idea what that message is ... it could be anything, and without some anchor, it will become anything anyone wants it to be ... such a Church ends up without substance, physically and spiritually.
I suppose I disagree because it is not so with me. I think the message is actually very simple and clear. Perhaps not the details, but certainly the parts that are essential to salvation. Christ says all who sincerely seek, find. I have faith in this. If there is a lack of substance, it is due to a lack of sincerity in seeking, not due to a lack of God being able to make clear the meaning of scripture. And we would be much more one Body if we functioned as a Body- the feet of Christ, the hands of Christ- if we focused on
being as Christ for others rather than on
thinking about it all.
Christ said "I am the vine, and you are the branches." (John 15:5). The unity is found in each of us being attached to Christ, the vine. We are each still our own branch, to bear our own fruit. The oneness we should show as the Body is the unity in what we bear- our fruit. It is the fruit that is evidence of the branches' union with the vine.
We believe that man is a unity, not a collection of disparate individuals. A star in the night sky is a star, but the Milky Way is breath-taking, and the starfields are a theophany.
I agree. But is doctrinal unity what would demonstrate the unity of the Body of Christ? As it stands, I can take any denomination and show that although everyone in it signs on to the same doctrine, their own actions (both in the church and outside it) are evidence that they are not unified. The unity of humanity, the Church, should show the love of Christ as He taught it. This love, as action in the world, would be so incredibly unique on earth, so moving, so utterly Divinely inspired, that it would undoubtedly show the unity of the Body of Christ. The visible connection is not in structure, in doctrine. The visible connection, the visible unity, is in loving action. It is acting as Christ acted. Christ is only invisible on earth if we fail to act as His Body- literally- His feet traveling to every person, His hands reaching out with healing and food and shelter, His voice reading His words.
The Church would be in one spirit (worshipping God and transcending the world) and in one flesh (acting as Christ in the world).
Then why bother with the Incarnation ... and why bother with all that bloody mess of the Passion?
I said the metaphor/message is
as important, not
more important. Indeed, I think the historicity, the humanity, of Jesus Christ is very important (and have said so elsewhere). But I think the teaching He brought is equally so.
Peace also with you,
Kim
