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.
I could have cited many others, including women's ordination as in Gramps49's example. Or other issues besides. Some of which would take us into Epiphanies territory and some to Kerygmania or both.
@Pease, the reason I'm referencing Tradition/s and so on isn't because I'm trying to set one form of Christianity against the others but to explore the issue of what it means - or whether it's possible - to talk of a 'common mind' or approach. Of course, we all have far more in common than those issues that continue to keep us apart. We are all Christians. We all seek to follow Christ.
As it happens, 'The Mind of The Church' is a term that crops up in my particular circles. In that context it means the 'Mind of the Orthodox Church' - which could sound very exclusive, of course.
The question arises whether the 'Mind of The Church' is always commensurate with 'The Mind of Christ' and what to do about it if and when it isn't.
I'm not restricting things to my own particular circles. I'm thinking about a 'common' Christian 'mind' across all Trinitarian believers and how we discern that in practice.
Is it important, for instance, for the RCs and the Orthodox to come to a 'common mind' on divorce and remarriage for instance? - something I'd be happy to take to Epiphanies rather than thrash out here.
How important is it that all Christian churches ordain women - and some churches don't believe in the concept of ordination in the first place. Again, Epiphanies is the more appropriate forum for a discussion of that kind.
What I'm trying to do here, and failing miserably I think, is to consider principles.
It's well and good to say that the Gospel should be our guiding principle or scripture our first and last point of reference but what happens if we don't agree on the interpretation of scripture or if some of us have scriptures that the rest of us don't recognise - like the Ethiopians?
Those are the sort of questions I'm struggling to address and it's hard to do so without getting bogged down in specific examples, some of which will take us in an Epiphanies direction.
Does that answer your question @Pease?
I'm not out to take sides on particular issues but to examine the principles which may lead to agreement and accord or to the re-examination of positions where necessary.
I note that discussion about women's ordination, and slavery, also belong in Epiphanies, rather than being used as examples or illustrations in a discussion about teaching or doctrine. And continuing to ask questions about how "important" it is to reach agreement on Epiphanical topics, and then trying to qualify your questions by saying the questions you ask are for Epiphanies, is decidedly disingenuous. We can still see what you did there.
Back on the topic, one problem is that the "Mind of the Church" being the "Mind of the Orthodox Church" doesn't just sound exclusive, it seems fundamentally incompatible with there being any broader meaning of the mind of Christ. Approaching the issue from the perspective of the "Mind of the Church" seems the wrong place to start.
In relation to the issue as you describe it, I'm not sure there there are any principles other than members of the body of Christ having the mind of Christ. What does it mean for two people who have the same mind to disagree? I think the underlying problem with the question is that you're asking how to resolve a paradox.
Looking at it another way, returning to your earlier question: In this debate, were humility, selflessness, compassion or love in evidence? Did you get any sense of obedience to God’s Will, eternal perspective or the guiding influence of the Holy Spirit? Or was it a debate full of sound and fury, signifying nothing?
If they had the same mind, they would be in agreement. Pretty much by definition. What your account tells us is that they did not have the same mind.
Where Western theology tends to systematize, define, and resolve, Orthodox theologians often preserve paradox, emphasize mystery, and keep doctrines embedded in worship rather than abstract frameworks. That doesn’t mean “vagueness”—it means a different kind of precision, one that is relational, liturgical, and therapeutic rather than juridical.
One item I want to add about Lutheranism, we do have a sense of adiaphora, meaning if it is not commanded or forbidden in the Bible, it is okay. An example: very strict denominations say you can only use the instruments mentioned in the Bible for worship, we say just because an electric guitar is not mentioned in the Bible does not mean we can't use it.
I certainly don't feel the need to issue a Hell call over it though.
No, rather I think it is an instance of Christians of different traditions 'talking past' each other to a certain extent.
Whatever our ecclesiology or whichever flavour of Christianity we 'inhabit', we can only start from where we are. 'The Mind of the Church' is a particular concept if you like with a particular resonance within the Orthodox Church and yes, you are right it creates a paradox as to how that 'mind' or the 'Mind of Christ' can be discerned and expressed both within Orthodoxy and across Christianity as a whole.
Heck, whatever flavour of Christian we are all of us have to live with paradox all the time. Our Lord Jesus as fully man and fully God primarily.
And all sorts of paradoxes that flow from that.
I am reluctant to address your questions about the exchange between RC and Orthodox clergy on divorce and remarriage here, mainly because it is an Epiphanies issue and this isn't the right forum for it.
Suffice to say that the exchange was remarkably and perhaps even refreshingly robust. An evangelical observer observed to me afterwards that they had never witnessed anything like it in 30 years of attending ecumenical events.
It was quite startling for those of us more used to decorous debate but no-one died and the same people still meet up and have dealings with on another.
The various Ecumenical Councils became quite heated by all accounts. Blows were exchanged if some of the hagiographies are to be believed.
Not that I'm advocating fisticuffs within Church Councils, synods, PCC meetings, Baptist 'church meetings', Quaker 'Meetings for Duscernment' or forums support as this.
I raised issues such as divorce and remarriage as illustrationscof the kind of thing Christians can disagree on - or fall out over. I could have equally chosen issues like baptism, creedal formularies, how we understand sacraments or ordinances, the presence of Christ in the eucharist, interpretation of scripture, the faith/works issurle, freewill and predestination and much else besides.
I happened to select divorce and remarriage and women's ordination as examples of areas of disagreement. If it looked as if I were disingenuously trying to lure people into fisticuffs over these issues then I apologise but I can assure you that was not my intention.
It is difficult to discuss principles without going into specifics and I am trying to do so without toppling into Epiphanies territory.
Accusations of bad faith on my part don't help.
I stopped referring to the divorce and remarriage issue a while ago ad FWIW I do have sympathy with @Forthview's stance whilst perhaps having a different view of how to handle these things pastorally on the ground.
It's not me who has continued to raise this particular issue, @pease. You have.
So please, less of the accusatory tone if you don't mind.
Thanks @Gramps49 you represent the Orthodox position very well and in so doing highlight some of the difficulties we have have sometimes in dialogue with Christians whose discourse can tend to be more propositional and 'juridical' in tone - and also why we can irritate the pants off every one else.
I'm interested in your point about the Lutheran sense of adiaphora. We Orthodox are more Awkwardox on that when it comes to musical instruments in worship, even though there are references to them in the Hebrew scriptures. There are some Greek parishes which use harmoniums of all things but generally our singing is unaccompanied.
I must admit I do miss rousing hymns with organ accompaniment and no, I don't object to guitars in the right context.
The issue of course is what is the right or most appropriate context? Just because we don’t use them in liturgical worship doesn't mean that nobody else should.
But again, it's principles I'm thinking about here not whether I think acoustic guitars are more appropriate than electric ones - or vice versa - or whether tin whistles, drums (and yes, drums are used in Orthodox worship in Africa), organs, kazoos, harmonicas, harmoniums or paper and comb are permissible in Christian worship.
That's for individual churches and groupings to decide, not me.
Recent studies even suggest Gen Z people prefer more balanced, and participatory liturgies. Worship services have become more diversified in content.
While we do follow the outline of the Western Mass, we mix a lot of things into it. Hymns may be African in background, Spanish here and there, a few Asian too, not just European.
Adiaphora also applies to other items. How the church is governed. While some denominations are heavily top down, Lutherans tend to be bottom up. The Amish may be horse and buggy types, we will go all the way when it comes to travel.
I think the one stipulation to adiaphora I can think of is, if it causes another person to lose faith, probably not a good idea to do it. We got into that in a movie appreciation class I was taking. It was at the time when the movie ratings were just coming out. X rated movies were in vogue at the time. Did you know when Midnight Cowboy first came out it was X rated? Now it is R rated--they deleted a couple of scenes. I was taking the Movie Appreciation at a Lutheran college. Consequently, when some conservatives in the group objected to Midnight Cowboy we had quite a discussion whether Christians could go to it.
Your movie appreciation example is another.
So, for instance, I've seen articles by Orthodox Christians online that say that Hallowe'en is completely harmless and there's no reason why Orthodox or other Christians shouldn't participate in celebrating it.
I've seen other articles by Orthodox Christians that say the complete opposite, that Hallowe'en is wicked and evil and Christian people should stand against it.
I would argue that Christians in good conscience can hold either of those positions in good faith. The question is, how do we find the 'mind of Christ' for situations like that - and how would I know that whatever my particular 'take' on that issue was closer - or further - from the mind of Christ than someone else's?
Or would Christ say, along with St Augustine, 'Love God and do what you will'?
Again, I want to explore principles here not whether we use pianos, organs, guitars and drums or whether our worship is 'Middle-Eastern' in tone or Whatever Else in Tone.
Bottom-Up or Top-Down are certainly issues when it comes to church governance and paradox often applies there too. I've known ostensibly free-and-easy settings that have been very controlling and equally very heirarchichal structures that have more lee-way than appears at first sight. Both can happen at one and the same time.
It feels a bit of an over-reach, a bit arrogant.
Not that I will ever answer it entirely of course.
The mind of Christ is all that we might take it to be and more. It is all goodness, all kindness, all wisdom, all love.
It is bigger than the 'Mind of the Church' - however defined - which is not to diminish the Church as the Body of Christ, 'the fulness of him who fills all in all' (Ephesians 1:23) but it is to set things in their proper context.
Yes, as @Pease says, we 'have the mind of Christ.' We have that already but we live between the now and the not yet. We work towards acquiring that mind and living out the implications of that not for ourselves but for those around us.
As the saying goes, 'become what you are.'
Someone once told me that the term 'catholicity' holds within itself the idea of working towards catholicity, not that it is already complete and has been achieved.
I've even heard an Orthodox ecumenist say the same in terms of the unity the Orthodox Church claims to have - or claimed to until the recent egregious schism between Moscow and other jurisdictions revealed that this wasn't the case.
We are all of us in our various ways working towards catholicity and orthodoxy, towards unity and acquiring the 'Mind of Christ.'
It's all work in progress. We have the Spirit guaranteeing - as it were - what is to come, we have scripture and tradition/Tradition. We have Christ dwelling in our hearts through faith. We have one another.
And yet. And yet.
And yet we presently we 'do not see all things under his feet.'
'But we see Jesus.'
Apologies. Cross-posted with you @Alan29.
My latest missive may go a little way towards answering your question.
@pease has reminded us that the Apostle Paul told the Corinthian believers that they already had the 'Mind of Christ' 1 Corinthians 2:16.
A done deal as it were.
But as we look around 2000 years on we have to ask ourselves how 'complete' that is. It's not as if any of us, individually or corporately are living that out in an exemplary way.
Orthodox polemicists often accuse the RCC of arrogance. 'Universal Pontiff? Pah!'
And so it goes on. Rifts remain unhealed.
Likewise, other believers, whether RC, 'Oriental Orthodox' and Protestants can legitimately accuse the Eastern Orthodox of arrogance. Our our internal spats and splits should disabuse us of that tendency.
I've been struggling to express myself cogently on this thread as it is hard to discuss principles without getting into specifics about differences and potential areas of disagreement that can topple over into Epiphanies.
I'm trying to explore these things in my own thinking and seek to broaden it out beyond my own particular expression of Christianity in order to do so - at the risk even of being misunderstood, accused of disingenuity and potentially giving offence.
There is a risk in any relationship or exchange. We risk upsetting or provoking one another.
What can appear a valid 'truth claim' to one person can appear as arrogance to someone else. It may well be arrogance. I'm not saying that arrogance, like beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.
'I am the way, the truth and the life,' sounds pretty arrogant, unless we recognise the One who said it as the One who said it, as it were.
If we accept that Christ did indeed say what has been attributed to him, of course.
I'm not sure I'm making myself clear and may be digging a deeper hole.
We are all working towards these things. None of us have 'arrived.'
As in “The mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind of the flesh is hostile to God: It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.”
Also: Which suggests that it is possible both for all Christians to have the mind of Christ, and for a particular Tradition to have "the mind of the Church", without any contradiction - they are two different categories of thing.
Both the Orthodox and the RCs of course would lay claim- arrogantly or otherwise- to have 'the fullness of the faith' - which has the unfortunate corollary of implying that this 'fullness' can only 'partially' be found elsewhere- which may be oxymoronic.
Truth is truth wherever it may be found.Cor
Which is why I prefer to think in terms of us 'working towards' or aiming to realise what is there potentially. I'd include all of us in that.
Out of interest, what is the Greek word for 'mind' in 1 Corinthians 2:16?
The church is Christ’s body, so the mind that directs it through the Holy Spirit must surely be Christ’s? The problem is that people in the church (ie, the members of the body of Christ) do not always discern correctly what the mind of Christ is telling them through the Holy Spirit.
Christians have different views on all sorts of issues. How do we discern the 'Mind of Christ' on those issues?
Of course, there is scope for lee-way and wriggle-room on various matters but how do we discern what are essentials and what are inessentials? Someone's 'inessential' might be someone else's 'essential' and vice-versa.
Ok, some things appear plainly 'wrong' to almost all of us and likewise plenty of things would seem 'right' to almost all of us. We have more in common than those things that keep us apart.
There are of course, a range of views within different churches and denominations and that's a healthy thing. There were disagreements back in 'New Testament times' and it'd be unrealistic to expect all Christians to be 100% in agreement with one another at all times.
I s'pose where I'm at is that the 'Mind of Christ' and 'The Mind of The Church' should dovetail but we don't always have our 'Head' screwed on as it were.
The question then is how do we ensure that we do?
Nobody gets to heaven alone.
Our faith is a corporate thing.
What you describe in your post though, @Gramps, 'communal deliberation based on a common understanding of scripture and a historical understanding of past determinations' is tradition.
It might not be Big T Tradition but it is tradition nonetheless.
I really don't understand why people are so frightened of the 't' word. We all operate in the context of one tradition or another, be it an Anglican one, Methodist, Lutheran, Anabaptist or whatever else.
I completely 'get' the Reformers rejected aspects of the received Big T Tradition as it was understood and practised in their day, but that didn't mean they ended up with no tradition. They developed traditions of their own based on their interpretation of scripture and collective debate on that and consideration of past deliberations, determination and precedent.
They had their own church councils, synods and confessions, whether Augsburg, Dort, Westminster and so on.
What else is a tradition if it isn't a received and agreed body of doctrine and belief?
On the one hand you rightly dismiss the possibility of any one individual coming up with all the answers but on the other you seem unwilling or unable to accept that your alternative is actually a tradition. Which it patently and undoubtedly is and is nothing to be wary or ashamed of.
I get some stick on these boards for referring to Big T Tradition and small t traditions when it fact all of us are operating within some form of tradition or other and indeed with much overlap and common ground.
If we accept the Nicene Creed we are accepting a tradition. If we agree on which books should comprise the New Testament canon we are accepting a tradition.
I really don't see the problem and why it's so difficult to accept that we are all drawing on a received tradition handed down from our forebears.
Why the false dichotomy?
Like Article XIX of the XXXIX Articles, cited by @Gamma Gamaliel above, the Westminster Confession says:
And that in turn gets us to the oft-quoted motto: Ecclesia reformata,
semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei (“the church reformed, always to be reformed (or always being reformed) according to the Word of God”). There is an expectation that this side of the new creation, reform in the church is inevitably ongoing, and that it falls upon each generation to study Scripture together to try and discern where the Spirit leads.
As an aside, Presbyterians generally do this discernment through bodies typically called courts or councils—sessions, presbyteries, synods (in some bodies) and general assemblies/general synods—composed of presbyters (ministers, aka “teaching elders,” and elders, aka “ruling elders”). Those elders sent by sessions to presbytery meetings, and those elders and ministers sent by presbyteries to meetings of synods and general assemblies are called commissioners, not delegates. This distinction is intended to underscore that the role of the gathered ministers and elders is not to represent the people back home, but rather to listen together for the guidance of the Spirit and, yes, discern the mind of Christ.
The trouble is, we take hundreds of years longer than anyone else to develop or change where necessary.
That said, I do believe that Holy Tradition is a living Tradition and not a fossilised one, although it can certainly feel like otherwise at times.
Of course we are all of us working towards discerning the 'Mind of Christ', and even though I don't subscribe to the 'Total Depravity' thing as it is popularly applied, certainly within 'neo-Calvinist' circles - I can't speak for the Reformed tradition more generally where I would expect more nuance - I agree that none of us will be 'perfect' this side of the Parousia.
On a practical and day-to-day level though, it can be messy if some of us see themselves as being 'ahead' of everyone else in discerning 'the mind of Christ' and wait for the rest of us to play catch-up.
Or conversely, if others think they have run too far ahead and innovated or stretched things too far without consulting everyone else. The corollary of that, of course, is that those who do wish to innovate or develop according to their understanding of the 'Mind of Christ' on whatever issue get frustrated by waiting for everyone else and so go ahead anyway.
Of course there is a received body of doctrines, behaviours and practices on which we'd all agree - and that's tradition whether we like it or not.
The tricky part is to hold onto those and to bear with one another as we all work through those things where we may not be in synch.
Love is the key to that.
From wikipedia, (but you could also look at Strong's etc): Following up the references in the article on phronema leads to Georges Florovsky, On Church and Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View:
I had been thinking along similar lines to Nick Tamen. In Article 19, and again in Article 21 of the 39 Articles (which I quoted earlier), Anglicans set out a fundamentally different perspective about the reliability of the Mind of the Church, of Tradition, in ascertaining the faith. Also, neither Georges Florovsky nor the 39 Articles directly reference the "mind of Christ", as far as I can see.
Nobody's "frightened" of the "t" word. It's just that a significant number of Christians do not hold tradition to ascertain the faith. As Nick Tamen wrote, “a central strand of Reformed thought is a strand that recognizes not just the possibility that the church will get it wrong, but actually assumes that we will, from time to time, get it wrong.”
I don't see why it's so difficult to accept that some church traditions hold that all church traditions are fallible.
What I’m saying is the there is no automatic assumption that the church gets it right in the Reformed tradition. There is effort to get it right and there is hope that we have gotten it right, but there is no assumption that we get it right. As I said above, our assumption is that we’re going to get it wrong sometimes.
It’s not so much nuance, as it is misunderstanding. It’s been noted many times on the Ship (and not just by me) that “total depravity” doesn’t mean what it’s often popularly understood to mean. It doesn’t mean that we are completely depraved. It means that every aspect of who we are is affected by sin, that we’re unable to save ourselves from sin, and that even our best and most sincere efforts to do good and right are not free from the corruption that comes with sin.
Admittedly, the label “total depravity” doesn’t help get across the idea that lies behind the label.
What I would say is times change. What may have been an accepted solution in one generation may not be an appropriate approach in another. I could give examples but they would all cross over into epiphanies categories.
Sure, we follow some traditions like using the outline of the mass or church government. For the ELCA we have even brought back a tradition or two, like the apostolic succession and the Weekly Eucharist plus liturgical renewal. But there are other challenges especially in the societal area where tradition has to change.
What I’m talking about when it comes to the understanding reflected in the motto I cited above—Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei (“the church reformed, always to be reformed (or always being reformed) according to the Word of God”)—isn’t really times change and what used to work no longer does. Rather, it’s “we have failed to understand what Scripture teaches,” or “we have failed to hear what the Spirit is saying through Scripture.” It may even be “we have listened to the voice of the world rather than to the voice of the Spirit through Scripture.” In other words, it’s an ongoing project of discerning where we have strayed from Scripture and of allowing for correction and reformation in those places.
So in the case of dead-horse or epiphanic issues and from that theological perspective, determining that we need to change with the times is not a valid reason for changing what we believe or how we do things. To make such a change, the church must be convinced that the understandings underlying the way we’ve done things are in fact contrary to Scripture, and that the church was wrong in thinking otherwise, even if we thought otherwise for centuries.
I agree with your last paragraph.
I’ve seen much ink spilled in Presbyterian publications pointing out that “always reforming” is not a correct translation of semper reformanda and is not consistent with Reformed theology. Rather, the proper translation and understanding is “being reformed” or “to be reformed.” (The latter is the translation used in the PC(USA)’s Book of Order.)
The distinction, the point is made, has to do with whether we reform ourselves (“always reforming”) or whether reforming is primarily the activity of the Holy Spirit (“always being reformed/to be reformed”). The Reformed understanding is the latter.
Of course, there is common consent on what we might call the 'dogmatic core' of Christian belief across all Trinitarian churches, which is tradition a shared and common body of beliefs.
We might all be wrong on that but there is a consensus at least. If the Trinity is a load of baloney, for instance, then we are all equally wrong on that.
How do we know if we are out of synch? Does 'society' decide? Scripture? But how do we reach a consensus on what scripture teaches?
Just askin'.
To me, the more useful question is what can we learn from the way that groups other than our own answer that question? Are we even open to learning from other groups?