The 'Mind of The Church', the 'Mind of Christ'
Gamma Gamaliel
Shipmate
In my own church circles there is talk of developing an 'Orthodox mind', or thinking 'Orthodoxly' as it were - of the 'Mind Of The Church'.
We're pretty 'collective' that way ...
And we have a Greek word for it of course, Phronema which is often expressed as The Orthodox Mind.
It tends to be seen as developing a 'built-in' way of thinking that goes beyond intellectual propositions and assent to particular doctrines.
That can apply to Christianity as a whole of course and I am not claiming uniqueness for this concept. I am sure other Christian traditions have their equivalents or do it without thinking (ha ha, see what I did there?) or having a particular name for it, Greek or otherwise.
We read in 1 Corinthians 2:16 that we 'have the mind of Christ'.
My question is this: to what extent is the 'mind of Christ' and the 'mind of the Church' (and yes, we have to think how we define Church of course) commensurate?
If Christ is the 'head' of the Church (and yes, these are metaphors) then that's where our thinking should come from.
So far, so good.
But we all fall short. It's all work in progress.
To take my own Tradition as a case in point. If we think that to be Orthodox means to be superior to everyone else or to look down on others then we aren't really developing Phronema at all. And yes, that happens all too often.
Of course, we all 'see in part and know in part' but I think we'd all agree that we should be striving to exemplify the Sermon on the Mount, the moral teachings of Christ and showing his love and compassion to a broken world.
Not pointing fingers at other people.
Of course, our Lord Himself 'got it right' and we can't because we aren't Christ - but hopefully we are being gradually conformed to his likeness, 'transformed by the renewing of your minds.'
I want to broaden this out more generally and not restrict things to my own Tradition. How can we 'achieve' and 'maintain' the 'Mind of Christ' individually and corporately? The Baptist tradition for instance, has particular insights and views on this from a congregational perspective.
Religious orders may have something specific to bring to the table.
There must be all manner of perspectives on this from which we can all learn.
Over to you.
We're pretty 'collective' that way ...
And we have a Greek word for it of course, Phronema which is often expressed as The Orthodox Mind.
It tends to be seen as developing a 'built-in' way of thinking that goes beyond intellectual propositions and assent to particular doctrines.
That can apply to Christianity as a whole of course and I am not claiming uniqueness for this concept. I am sure other Christian traditions have their equivalents or do it without thinking (ha ha, see what I did there?) or having a particular name for it, Greek or otherwise.
We read in 1 Corinthians 2:16 that we 'have the mind of Christ'.
My question is this: to what extent is the 'mind of Christ' and the 'mind of the Church' (and yes, we have to think how we define Church of course) commensurate?
If Christ is the 'head' of the Church (and yes, these are metaphors) then that's where our thinking should come from.
So far, so good.
But we all fall short. It's all work in progress.
To take my own Tradition as a case in point. If we think that to be Orthodox means to be superior to everyone else or to look down on others then we aren't really developing Phronema at all. And yes, that happens all too often.
Of course, we all 'see in part and know in part' but I think we'd all agree that we should be striving to exemplify the Sermon on the Mount, the moral teachings of Christ and showing his love and compassion to a broken world.
Not pointing fingers at other people.
Of course, our Lord Himself 'got it right' and we can't because we aren't Christ - but hopefully we are being gradually conformed to his likeness, 'transformed by the renewing of your minds.'
I want to broaden this out more generally and not restrict things to my own Tradition. How can we 'achieve' and 'maintain' the 'Mind of Christ' individually and corporately? The Baptist tradition for instance, has particular insights and views on this from a congregational perspective.
Religious orders may have something specific to bring to the table.
There must be all manner of perspectives on this from which we can all learn.
Over to you.
Comments
Christ's self emptying
Christ's servanthood
Christ's Obedience unto death, and
Christ's exaltation by God.
It is a communal mindset based on the plural "Let this mind be in you all."
It is practiced in community
expressed in mutual care
discerned together
and embodied in the life of the congregation.
We understand the mind of Christ as a call to
center the neighbor's good
relinquish status and privilege
stand with those who suffer
resist denomination and coercion, and
embody reconciliation,
This is way the ELCA social teaching often emphasizes accompaniment, justice and advocacy for the marginalized,
Aspirations I think most of us, I hope would consider worthwhile.
The sort of thing any Christian church should be working towards.
Without wishing to get too 'party-line' about these things, would you say there was anything distinctively 'Lutheran' about these aspirations and understandings?
If so, in what way?
More broadly, do any of our church structures and ways of working help or hinder the outworking these principles?
I understand that collective agreement over actions within the church (locally or more widely) can be hard to achieve but there is much to be said for free collective discussions. Where “top down” gets in the way of that, it may well lead to the mind of the church getting a long way away from the mind of Christ. As history has demonstrated.
Sure. I can see all that but even though I'm in a different place ecclesiastically, I retain a soft-spot for the 'church-meeting' concept as it came as a breath of fresh air after our years in a very 'top-down' restorationist setting which could veer into authoritarianism at times.
And yes @Barnabas62 and as current events still demonstrate as well as historical examples. (Cough, cough K-k-k-yrill ... cough).
Other Christian traditions will have their own examples.
I s'pose what I'm angling at - or struggling towards - is how we ensure that any particular church culture can express the 'mind of Christ' through or alongside that culture.
This goes beyond particular systems and structures, I think, although we can't avoid those.
There's a book I haven't read called Thinking Orthodox: Understanding and Acquiring the Orthodox Christian Mind by Eugenia Stavelis Constaniou.
I can imagine the sort of thing it covers as there is an emphasis within Orthodoxy on acquiring 'the mind of Christ' and indeed becoming more Christ-like through regular participation in the feasts and fasts and the Liturgy etc.
I'm not saying that it's 'salvation by Liturgy' as one wag put it to me once but we do see these things as a means of 'spiritual formation' as the RCs would call it and certainly are more 'prescriptive' than some traditions would be about these things.
A consequence of this - perhaps unintended - is that we can begin to see anything else as odd or alien unless it accords closely with our own way of doing things. I can see this happening to me.
I wouldn't go as far as an Orthodox friend who grew up Plymouth Brethren who says that he found himself incapable of praying in an extemporary way when staying with some evangelical relatives who expected him to pray with them.
I could still pray extemporarily but would certainly pepper it with phrases from the Offices and the Liturgy. I imagine many RCs, Anglicans and Lutherans would do that too.
I find it odd for instance these days when people lounge about when praying or don't invoke the name of the Holy and Undivided Trinity.
Yes, these are externals and I'm not saying that God doesn't listen to people unless they use the 'correct' formularies or pray with particular fervency or whatever else. I heard of a lovely Irish Catholic woman whose first language is Gaelic and who always prays in that language rather than English. I'm sure the Lord is delighted to hear that.
But how we act externally does have an effect on us internally. We are what we eat and so on. 'As a man thinks within himself ...'
Getting down to brass-tacks, I'm not sure any of us corporately or individually can fully realise 'the mind of Christ' - but as the old hymn goes, we have to 'trust in His redeeming blood and try his works to do.'
At the very least I think we have to cultivate a life-style of prayer and praise, kindness, almsgiving (sharing in the wider sense) and intentionality. And talking to one another of course.
Am I making any sense?
I will give an example of how the ELCA develops a social statement. Usually a question will arise through the passage of Memorials from local synods on a certain question, say on welcoming the stranger. (an example, not a real question) to the General Assembly which has delegates, lay and clergy from all over the National Church Body. The General Assembly will refer the question to a study group, which in this case would include theologians, immigration experts, lawyers, etc. That study group will study the various dynamics of the question and come up with a proposed statement which will be sent to the Council of Bishops who will refer it to the congregations for further studies. Congregations will then send reactions back to the national study group for further refinement to the proposed statement. At the next General Assembly--held every three years, the Final Draft of the Statement will be put before the delegates for formal passage.
The proposed statement will take a law and gospel approach to the question. It will be very Scriptural. The study group will use the law as a way to diagnose and define the problem. It will then use the Gospel to show how Jesus would likely approach the problem and then offer contemporary solutions to the problem.
What I like about this process is how congregational the process really is. Most questions start by congregations asking the question. They pass the question to the local synod which is made up of delegates and clergy from congregations in the local area. When the question is passed on to the General Assembly those delegates include lay and clergy delegates from all the local synods. Once the study has been proposed, it is passed back down to congregations for refinement. Even when the National Assembly passes the final draft, it is up to the congregations to implement it, and each congregation will likely implement it in ways unique to the congregation.
Our bishops do not determine what the mind of Christ is but congregations do. Bishops may give reactions to the question, but they do not have final say in coming up with the answer. Once the final statement is passed, they will encourage congregations to implement the solutions, but they cannot order how a congregation implements the solution.
A word about the role of bishops in the ELCA. They are elected from the pool of clergy. They are most often from the local clergy, but every so often a call to be a bishop may be extended to a clergy from outside the area. The local bishop has more of an administrative role than a governing role. They are active in the placement of new missions. They will ordain and install new pastors, but the candidate for ordination must have a call from a congregation or other body within the synod. When a congregation is vacant, the bishop will work with the congregation to complete a self study of its needs. Based on those needs, the bishop will recommend usually three candidates the bishop thinks will fill those needs, but the congregation determines who the next pastor will be. From then on the bishop takes on any advisory role, encouraging the pastor and the congregation in carrying out their mission, publishing an annual salary guideline. developing new mission starts, mediating disputes that arise every so often. If a congregation decides to close there are certain legal hoops the bishop oversees. If a congregation decides to withdraw from the national body, the bishop consults with the congregation to determine if the problem can be resolved. If not, then the bishop will work to ensure a peaceful transition. The bishop does periodically meet with the national council of bishops to discuss the state of the national body and to advise and encourage each other in the performance of their duties.
In short, our bishops take on a largely advisory role to the clergy and congregations in a local synod. Of note, we call the administrative head of the national body a presiding bishop who represents the national body in international fellowships and will preside at the National Assembly. He or she usually is at the level of an archbishop from other denominations, but the role is largely administrative, and advisory.
One last comment. There are only two ordinational roles in the ELCA. The ordination for Word and Sacrament (clergy, pastors) and the ordination for Word and Service (deacons and teachers). There is no extra ordination for bishop or presiding bishop, they are drawn from the clergy ranks and are installed into the office.
Then there are the local synods which covers specific areas. My local synod is the Northwest Intermountain Synod. It covers Eastern Washington from the Cascade Mountains East, all of Idaho, and a small part of both western Wyoming and Eastern Oregon. Other local synods might cover the a whole state, or specific metropolitan areas. Western Washington, for instance has two synods, one in the Seattle area and one in the Vancouver WA area. On the other hand, Iowa is just one local synod.
There is also a regional body which basically helps with developing ministerial candidates and pooling of resources. No real power though.
This compares somewhat with the LCMS through they do not call their regional bodies synods but local districts. And the leaders of the local districts are not bishops but are called presidents. There national Synod is also headed by a President. Has to go to when the LCMS was formed. Basically, there was a group of high church people that wanted to use the term bishops, but the laypeople and other clergy preferred using more democratic terms. Quite a long story there.
1. The ordinary and universal magisterium, which is what all (non-heretical) bishops have always taught and believed on matters of faith and morals, and therefore is infallible doctrine without needing to be explicitly defined as such by the Pope or a Church council. This form of infallible authority, explained in the first Vatican Council in the 19th century, was used during the papacy of St. JPII (with Cardinal Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as Prefect for the Doctrine of the Faith) as an explanation of why the ban on female priests, among other things, was infallible without requiring the Pope to stick his neck out by exercising papal infallibility.
2. The sensus fidei, which is a supernatural instinct for truth on matters of faith and morals that the Holy Spirit gives to all baptized believers, both laypersons and clerics. It enables all the baptized to recognize and adhere to the faith and apply it to daily life, especially in response to modern challenges and changes in society and technology. This was emphasized in the teachings of Vatican II.
Some more liberal RCs want to claim that the sensus fidei is a way that a majority of all baptized persons can reject a teaching - especially one like the ban on artificial birth control that hasn’t been called infallible by the Magisterium - with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but the hierarchy has explicitly rejected this notion and it’s a stretch to claim that anything like this was intended by Vatican II.
paragraph a) seems to be not historically accurate - did the bishops always hold and teach the doctrine of papal infallability or the evil of slavery (to mention just two) since the beginning of the church? Of course not. Newman tackled this and came up with the (now widely accepted) idea of the development of doctrine.
The sensus fidei is more about the Spirit protecting the entire church from error. There is the slightly different notion of the laity as a whole not accepting a teaching and the teaching therefore being inauthentic. Which begs the question "which laity, where and when."
I don't see that as a deal-breaker though when it comes to my acceptance of Holy Tradition, but it is to say that I think everything was 'in place' as it were the morning after the Day of Pentecost.
We can see developments happening within the pages of the NT as well as the writings of the early Fathers.
As far as this thread goes, though, I'm trying to consider principles that might apply both within our own confessions and more broadly across Christendom as a whole.
You have highlighted some important issues that apply to all of us, 'who, what, where and when'?
That's where it all becomes difficult of course but these are pertinent questions for us all.
Projection on the Almighty looms large among believers. Which is why I am mightly suspicious of those who claim to know the mind of God. At best we see through a glass darkly.
On the other hand most believers will believe that 'God is on their side' or that they are on God's side.,but they don't have the possibility to impose this on others
I certainly agree with Newman about the development of doctrine.
The word 'slavery' can be interpreted in a number of different ways.
Early Christians would have accepted slavery as a part of life and still accept that we are all equal 'in Christ,where there is neither Jew nor Greek,slave or free'.
I think that it is in that sense that the sensus fidei or sensus fidelium can remain the same throughout the centuries though details can be changed.
For example Christ never said 'Women cannot be priests' but it has long be interpreted probably at times by society in general that this was the case.
The whole ceremony began with a commemoration of the rite of baptism when four people were to sprinkle the 3000 people in the congregation with the baptismal water, they were one priest,one deacon,one (female) pastoral assistant and one (female) teacher of religion.
At the end of the Mass the new Archbishop went round the cathedral giving his blessing so many times but also he was in turn given a special blessing by the (female) bishop of the Lutheran Church and the (female) bishop of the Old Catholic Church as well as a blessing from the faithful of the Vienna archdiocese and this was voiced by a woman.
The new archbishop is an accomplished organist and has organ pipes in his coat of arms as well as the motto 'Melodiam Dei recipite' (Make use of God's melody) apparently words of Ignatius of Antioch.
Sure, but our respective Christian traditions/Traditions do make those sort of claims. It happens at the back-street sectarian level and it happens with historic Churches like the RCC and the Orthodox.
Heck, the Anglicans did it one time with the 39 Articles - see Article 19.
As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.
Ok, it doesn't say that 'this Church of England by law established' is the only one that gets it right, but it does presume to make a judgement on other Churches - and presumably considers it has the 'mind of Christ' to do so.
Whatever the case, it still begs the question as to how we discern the 'mind of Christ', cosy feelings or no cosy feelings.
If we can't say that it explicitly comes from a gospel teaching then we are better saying that it's our best endeavour and not drag Christ in to validate it.
To give an example, I was once at an impromptu debate that broke out between RC and Orthodox clergy on divorce and remarriage.
Putting it mildly, the RC priests present had very entrenched views on the matter. Our Lord did not permit it. End of.
The Orthodox took a more lenient or flexible view shall we say. We allow divorce and remarriage up to 3 times. That's because one of the Ecumenical Patriarchs told one of the Emperors that enough was enough ...
Now then, who was closer to the Gospel in that instance?
The RCs or the Orthodox?
Who decides?
Ok, we are getting into specifics rather than principles but you get my drift. How do we decide who has the 'Mind of Christ' on an issue like that?
The problem for all followers of Christ is how we interpret what exactly the words quoted above mean.
It seems to me that the Orthodox say 'we cannot live up to this so we will take a more lenient view.' but perhaps that is not the case
The RCs try to say that the couple have never really been joined in sacramental marriage.
The way out which I like best is that put forward by the recently retired Archbishop of Vienna, Cardinal Schoenborn 'If a marriage comes to an end,then that is the point of death and those who are left behind can start again.'
Why do you say that? And why do you talk about there being your own Tradition and other Traditions? Or draw attention to different Traditions making judgment on one another?
There is one Church, one body of Christ. Different parts of the body claiming to be the whole body, and to have jurisdiction over the whole body have indeed erred, which is what Article 19 seems to be pointing out, in relation to what is visible. The first part of Article 19 seems pertinent (gendered language aside): And Article 21 makes a salient point: As much as there is one body of Christ, there is one mind of Christ. Beyond that, I'm really not sure what you mean by "the Mind of the Church".
Why do Christians need to discern "the mind of Christ" if Christians already have "the mind of Christ". The passage in 1 Corinthians 2, about spiritual wisdom, seems to spell out that it is having the mind of Christ that enables the person who who has received the Spirit who is from God, to receive and know the things freely given by God through the Spirit of God.
And, as one source has it, the following qualities characterise the mind of Christ: Humility and Selflessness; Obedience to God’s Will; Compassion and Love; Eternal Perspective; Guiding Influence of the Holy Spirit.
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
Matt 18:18 ESV
Lutherans have traditionally held this to be a part of the confession and absolution of sin. It is also a proof text for excommunication.
But, new studies and translations have indicated it is much more than that.
The Amplified Version--which, granted, is more of a paraphrase has it this way:
Scholars have found that the term "whatever you shall bind/loose" comes from a rabbinical practice
In Hebrew and Aramaic, the verbs were:
אָסַר / asar — to bind, meaning “to forbid”
הִתִּיר / hittir or Aramaic שְׁרָא / sherā — to loose, meaning “to permit”
Rabbinic teachers used these terms when issuing halakhic rulings—decisions about what was allowed or prohibited in daily Jewish life. This was not casual language; it was the vocabulary of legal interpretation and communal governance.
See: https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3307-binding-and-loosing?utm_source=copilot.com
An example I have used is you are walking along a path. You spot a bag. In the bag there are good coins. The Torah says: "Do not steal." But you do not know who the owner is. What do you do? The rabbis came up with the recommendation; you are to ask anyone within so many feet of the bag if they have lost something. If no one says they have lost a bag of gold coins, the bag is yours.
A biblical example would have been when Gentile started coming into the church, should the males be circumcised because or not, or do Gentile Christian have to follow kosher laws. The first Jerusalem Council addressed these issues and determined no, Gentile males did not have to be cut and kosher laws did not have to be followed except when it came to meat that was offered to idols.
We acknowledge slavery was allowed in the early church because it came from that socio economic background, but as time went on: much, much later. The church as a whole realized slavery is against God's will and is now banned. In this case, there was not a general counsel to come to that conclusion. Individual faith groups worked through it themselves.
Women's ordination is still forbidden in the Roman and Orthodox traditions, but most Protestant denominations have allowed it. Luther was once asked if he could ever see the time when there would be female priests. He replied it could happen if all the men had gone to war and there was no one else to do the ministry of Word and Sacrament. There is also is what Paul said about in Christ there is neither male nor female. And there are examples of female priests in the catacombs of Rome and elsewhere. Many Protestant denominations now allow for women's ordination.
I like the example listed above of a RC bishop ordaining female priestly assistants listed above. Sounds like the RC people are beginning to realize they have to have someone to carry on the sacramental functions of the church when there are not enough men going into the priesthood. Could this lead to full ordination? Maybe not in my lifetime, but maybe in God's time.