In many traditional discussions of the church, a host of definitional distinctions are brought out right away: the church invisible vs. visible; triumphant vs. militant; representational vs. lay; and so forth. All of these distinctions have their place, and in their place are very important. Here, however, I propose to start with the primary lexical meaning of the Hebrew qahal or Greek ekklesia as “the called,” which, in the biblical context, connotes a people called out of the sinful mass of humanity to be the people of God, to worship him in truth, and be constituted as the corporate body identified with the living and true God.

The Western form of the Nicene (or for the hyper-fastidious: the Niceno-Constantinopolitan) Creed includes the phrase “[Credo…] unam sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam.” The preposition “in” should not be inserted (i.e. it is not “I believe in the church”) according to the best authorities, see e.g. Calvin IV.1.2. The meaning is also not as if to say, “I believe any proposition spoken by the church.” Nor is it to say, “I trust the church”– that would require the dative case. Since the Latin form of the creed changed the original Greek from first person plural (pisteuomon, we believe) to singular (credo, I believe), thus emphasizing the responsibility of each individual to speak the creed with heartfelt, personal sincerity, I suggest the force of our phrase under consideration is confessional or proclamational, as if to say, “these are things I confess, announce, proclaim to be true.” Thus, I would render the force of the expression something like “I confess the existence of one holy catholic and apostolic church.”

I wish to put a stake in the ground with the primary, simple, central, core meaning of the thing – the church – as well as those of its attributes affirmed in the Creed: one, holy, catholic, apostolic. Then, by reflection, all of these will be expanded out into their implied meanings. I will track the “hermeneutical circle” on this subject, which means that to seek refined meaning, one must already know, basically, what something means. Thus, initially I will not stake out every possible connotation or accretion of meaning. Some possible implications will at the outset be bracketed, or treated without prejudice as to validity or truth. For example, I will at first regard a theme like “apostolic succession of bishops” as neither affirmed nor denied. This, and many other themes will be unpacked and examined in due time.

Holy

The holiness of the church refers to its separateness from the world. It is thus correlative to the church being called out of the world: its status as qahal, ekklesia. Fundamentally, the weighty otherness of God over against all of creation is the root of holiness. Men partake of this attribute by virtue of being associated with the holy God.

This is a great topic, and worthy of a series of its own.

For the purposes of this series, it perhaps only remains to note that the holiness of the church does not imply her infallibility or her freedom from all sin. An apostolic leader, Peter, needed to be rebuked publicly at one point; how much more the rest of us. There is safety in the church because our Lord promised the presence of his Spirit; but this no more guarantees perfection than the fact that the individual Christian’s body is a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19) guarantees it, in this life, to the individual.

Though in one sense the holiness of the church is everything, being, as it is, involved with the presence of God, which is the telos of human existence, it will be a tacit assumption for most of the discussion that will ensue. My focus in this series will be the constitutive question: how is one part of this catholic and apostolic church that is holy? what does being part of it imply?

One church, one catholic church

The oneness implies singularity: there is no other way to God than through Christ, and the Church is his one body, “outside of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation” the Westminster Confession affirms (25.2).

Cyprian confirms this, oddly, not with John 14:6, but Song of Solomon 6:9a “My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her” and 4:12 “A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.” Here Cyprian wisely headed off the notion that any heretic or autocrat can claim to be “coming to the Father through the Son.” This coming is not something that can be done autonomously, but only in the manner the Son has revealed; and the manner entails being a member of his ordained body, the church. Though modern commentaries on the Song of Solomon do not confirm Cyprian’s exegesis (perhaps to their discredit? another day…), it is interesting that we can get to the same conclusion on an even stronger basis.

There can only be one church, because it is the people united to God, and there is only one God. Paul brings this out as well in Eph 4, especially vv 4-6: “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye 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 you all.”

Notice the cascaded repetition of the “one” concept; and all the modes of oneness are rooted (v 6) in the telos discussed under the rubric of holiness, namely the presence of God, who is one.

The oneness and the catholicity are mutually explaining: the oneness included the uniqueness, the singularity of the church; the catholicity indicates that it is not a point but a world. As Cyril of Jerusalem says, “spread through the whole world… it teaches fully [katholikos]…every sort of men, rulers and ruled, learned and simple …it brings a universal [katholikos] remedy and cure to every kind of sin.”

The concept of oneness, uniqueness, singularity do not entail catholicity: Israel had the former without the latter. But the catholicity of the church in the new administration is rooted and grounded in her oneness, her unity, uniqueness, singularity.

Catholicity does not imply union in a set-theoretical sense. People talk as if something is “more catholic” if it includes, say, a tradition from some other communion. On this view, catholic seems to refer to the set every practice of every claimant to Christianity at any time or any place. A pastor adds some bit of liturgy to the service and people go around beaming, “he’s got a real sense of the catholicity of the church.” This is a misconception. This or that practice may be in keeping with the principle of catholicity or contrary to it. That it is done – even, that it is done widely – is not by itself a guarantee of catholicity.

The same error is made in respect to antiquity, known as tradition. But because something has been done for a long time is no guarantee of its catholicity.

Indeed, the principle of catholicity could with better justice be invoked to rule out regional accretions, no matter what weight of tradition might be claimed for them.

The universal (catholic) communion of all saints in the unity of the one church reflects the union of each in God, who is himself a union of diversity, the holy Trinity. This was already unpacked by Cyril of Alexandria. It is important to always remember that unity-in-diversity is not something new in creation; it is an aspect of being united in the prior union-in-diversity of the holy triune God. Otherwise, a kind of man-centered autonomy can creep in through the back door.

This unity is not manifested institutionally in our day, but that does not change the metaphysical unity that we confess; and it certainly has implications.

The unity in all nations and places has implications also over time, since each generation succeeds the previous with continuity, and the unity and catholicity is maintained at every juncture. This temporal aspect may become more clear in discussing the apostolicity of the church.

Apostolic

In keeping with my rule of starting with the core meaning before building out, we must avoid pouring specific content into the word “apostolic” such as some groups do by supposing that by performing foot-washing, communal sharing, or other practices, they are “apostolic” or following the example of the apostles.

At the outset, I want to keep it simple with the bare formal acknowledgement of apostolicity. The apostles were that limited band of church leaders specifically called by Christ as the founders of the new, and final form of the church. It included the eleven faithful of the original disciples, Paul, and perhaps a small group of additional men. Apostolic, then, means to be in conformity with whatever that group of designated men, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, taught to be characteristic of the church, the body of Christ. A fortiori, of course, anything taught directly by the King and Head of the church, Jesus Christ, is part of apostolicity par excellence.

Putting it this way raises a question, however. It follows from the definition of the church as the people called from the mass of mankind to enter into fellowship with God, who is one, that the “church” has been one from the time of Adam to the present. But if the people of God have a corporate history going back to Adam, why is the apostolic foundation emphasized? If there has always been a people of God, if Noah was an exemplar of the church (I Pet 3:20), if Judges and Prophets are listed as heroes of the one faith (Heb. 11), then why should the church be designated apostolic? Why is that not anachronistic?

A related question also arises. Grant that, at the very least, the people of God were reorganized in a significant way, so that some notice at least should be taken of that fact. But should we model the church as a complete starting from scratch, or as a continuation of the people of God as they were ushered in under the Old Covenant, with tweaks and adjustments? Should the creed have identified the true church, not as merely “apostolic,” but “Mosaic, prophetic, and apostolic”?

To bring the issue home a different way, recall James Jordan’s observation that throughout redemptive history, there were several “new testaments.” That is, at a number of points, new revelation came that in some ways superceded that which preceded it; and each time that occurred, it was as if there was a “New Testament” attached to or supplementing the “Old Testament.” Then, when it happened again, that “New Testament” would be amalgamated as part of the Old to be supplemented by yet a new Testament. At different stages in redemptive history, the people of God could have emphasized our “Enosian” foundation (Gen 4:26), our “Mosaic” foundation, our “Joshuachic” foundation, “Davidic,” and so forth. At each stage, new ordinances for life and worship were instituted, and others were superceded.

But we know that in Jesus Christ, all these foundations found their consummation, Heb. 1:1-2: “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.”

We thus see that the Creed recognizes the decisive and final nature of the incarnation and work of Christ. This has far-reaching implications. Revelation comes in conjunction with developments in redemptive history: it is not just a curiosity that drops down from heaven. (This is one reason we know that Mormonism is false.) Because Jesus Christ is the final and culminating word, it means the canon is closed. Thus, the church will now always look back on a finished revelation; no longer look for a “prophet” to bring additional information or leadership (as Deut 18:18).

Christ recruited and trained disciples, then sent them out as apostles, that is, holders of authority derived directly from Himself (Luke 10:16). He speaks through them; they speak of him, and do so with the authority of God himself (Acts 1:8). The church, in summary, is “…built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone,” Eph 2:20.

The word of the apostle and the word of Christ can be taken as interchangeable.

This means we can bracket the question raised above as to whether the church is a new start or a reform of the previous. Whatever and however that is answered, it is the apostles who answer it. If there is continuity, then “apostolic” is synecdocal for what came before, as ratified by Christ and the apostles.

Only that group can claim to be the church if it has doctrinal and structural continuity with the apostles. Let me illustrate with a thought-experiment:

Imagine a group of people in the mid-first century that heard about Jesus and believed in him. They form themselves into what they call a “church.” But they are not interested in attaching themselves submissively to that peripatetic band known as the apostles. They have made up their own system of adjudicating doctrinal disputes, and governing the church. They have no desire to be accountable to other alleged Christians elsewhere.

The apostle Paul comes through town, but they decline to invite him to speak. It might imply that they lack something in themselves. They’re just as good as any apostle.

Such a situation is not conceivable!

Yet how many churches today are not acting in just exactly that way? I will unpack this further in the weeks to come.

The apostles preached the word of Christ, and also extended an authority structure. They ordained bishops and elders, by the laying on of hands.

Thus, in the nature of the case, the proper situation of the hypothetical congregation outlined above, of organic attachment to the church extended under the authority of the apostles, would not end with the passing of the apostolic generation.

The church today must necessarily possess organic continuity with the apostolic church. There is thus a continuity or sameness through time.

What marks we should look for to verify this, is one burden of the subsequent posts.

To summarize with a simple mnemonic, I suggest that “catholicity and apostolicity” can be remembered as “unity in space and time.”

As with all mnemonics, the proper interpretation must be remembered.

The Holy Catholic Church (HCC)

This is the first post in a series. I invite you, dear reader, to walk with me to revisit many of the problems plaguing the contemporary church with this single focus: one holy catholic and apostolic church. Let us see if this simple yet far-reaching focus does not clarify many of the problems.

In the next installment, let us reflect together on the question of whether Independency can be regarded as a legitimate part of the holy catholic and apostolic church.

To keep track of the “series,” I will identify each installment somewhere by HCC (holy catholic church). The unam and apostolicity is tacitly implied, for the sake of brevity.