"Denominational Renewal": Part 1

In February I attended three sessions of the "Conversation on Denominational Renewal" conference here in St. Louis. The bios of the speakers, along with downloadable MP3s of their talks, are listed here. I went to seminary with three of the speakers: Bill Boyd, Jeremy Jones, and Greg Thompson, and with Kevin Twit, who led the music for worship. Not only that, but the conference was held at Memorial Presbyterian Church, where my family and I worshiped for about six years; I actually preached there a few times during my internship. (This was just before it reshaped its image and worship style to be more attractive to college students and young people.)

Being back there was surreal, just for those reasons. But in addition, here I was, now a Catholic (probably the only Catholic there) surrounded by familiar faces and friends from my Presbyterian seminary, and immersed again (for the first time in about seven years) in the very palpable PCA culture (in the manner of speech, the manner of prayer, and the manner of worship). That too made the experience surreal. How strange to feel [at least initially] somewhat like an outsider, among a community of which I had been a part only a relatively short time ago.

But then I began to listen to the talks. In all I heard Jeremy Jones' theological reflection, Bill Boyd's talk on worship, and Matt Brown's talk on ecclesiology. Overall, I was very pleased with and pleasantly surprised by the talks, and impressed by the kind of conversation that was taking place. Not only do these men obviously and deeply love God from the heart, and not only are they diligently pursuing the truth even in Christian traditions outside the Reformed tradition, they are also laying down their lives daily to serve God in the positions and places where they are. I genuinely admire them for all those reasons, and I'm proud that they are my brothers in Christ, very proud. [Sidenote: Anthony Bradley was there as well (we graduated together from CTS), and when I saw recently that Fr. Zuhlsdorf linked Anthony's article on black liberation theology, I was delighted.] During Bill Boyd's talk, I was sitting about two pews ahead of Bryan Chappell, the President of Covenant Theological Seminary, and I heard him lean over to somebody next to him and say, "This is not your father's PCA". I concur. For me, it was a kind of PCA 'aggiornamento', a call to think more broadly than the limits of a particular ecclesial 'ghetto'.

I have divided my comments on this conference into two parts. In this first part, I will write about Jeremy Jones' talk titled "On Renewing Theology". In the second part, I will write about Matt Brown's talk on ecclesiology. As for Bill Boyd's talk, I think it was excellent, and I recommend listening to it. In it he lays out the biblical account of the place of food and eating in community and worship. But I'm not going to say anything more here about Bill's talk.

There is so much I can agree with in Jeremy's talk, but I'm going to say little about that, and focus only on a point of disagreement. This creates a misleading impression, as though I primarily disagree with Jeremy, or as though I think Jeremy is mostly wrong. That's not true. There is a great deal of common ground. And I'm very grateful for all of these men, and for the gifts and talents and passion they are bringing to this discussion, both within the PCA and to the broader ecumenical discussion. My reason for focusing on the point of disagreement is precisely to help bring us to unity, by attempting to cast light on that which divides us. So I write this with charity in my heart for my brothers in the PCA, and affection as well.

Jeremy Jones began his talk by criticizing sectarianism. He defined 'sectarianism' as "the practical or theoretical identification of your tradition or some subset of it as the true Church." Sectarianism, he said, is the notion that

"We are the Church and others aren't". "At its root sectarianism is a sin." "It is the ecclesial form of the sin of pride." "Sectarianism is the sin of legalism: we functionally elevate human theological opinion to the level of Scripture. Sectarianism is the sin of idolatry: we worship our past, our tradition, its men, and movements, our theology, Confessions."

Later in his talk he talked about the importance of understanding the incarnation for contextualizing the Gospel, saying, "Our ultimate model for contextualization is the incarnation". As I see it, there is a tension between Jeremy's incarnational conception of spreading the Gospel and his non-incarnational conception of the Church. I say "non-incarnational conception of the Church" because he seems to hold a non-institutional conception of the Church. This non-incarnational conception of the Church treats the Church as per se invisible, being visible only in that her embodied 'members' are visible. For a more detailed explanation, see my post titled "Christ founded a visible Church" as well as (at least) the last four pages of my "The Gnostic Roots of Heresy" paper.

Jeremy's notion that sectarianism is a sin assumes that no existing institution is the institution that Christ founded. Of course the notion that, say, the PCA is the Church Christ founded is obviously false, since it was founded in 1973. The conception of the Church as invisible per se, and thus non-institutional per se, is intrinsic to denominationalism, for denominationalism by its very nature sees no need for any institution, including one's own denomination, to have been founded by the incarnate Christ. In this way, denominationalism is constantly in tension with itself, for either a denomination conceives of itself in the sectarian manner Jeremy describes above, in which case it runs into the problem that it was founded at least 1500 years after Christ ascended into heaven, or it conceives of itself as a part of a whole that is not itself an institution. But if the whole need not be institutionally organized, then neither does the part, hence the tension (to put it mildly). This seems to me to be an inescapable dilemma for denominationalism.

In the classroom, I not infrequently encounter student comments of the following sort: "Nobody has the whole truth; everybody just has a little part." Typically the conversation is about religion or ethics. Implicit in the student's comment is a kind of skepticism masked as egalitarianism and/or pluralism. It just wouldn't be right, goes this line of thought, to think that one group has the whole truth about x, and another group doesn't have the truth about x. They all must equally have the truth, or they all must have an equal share of the truth. I agree that in many if not most cases one person or group doesn't have the whole truth about a matter, but some students falsely tend to move from that premise to the conclusion that therefore all persons or groups have an equal share of the truth about that matter, or that everyone's opinion on a particular subject is of equal worth. Implicit in Jeremy's anti-sectarianism is a similar notion applied to religious institutions. It just can't be that one institution is the right one, the original one, the orthodox one -- that's elitist and neither egalitarian nor "catholic". This mentality serves almost as an a priori presupposition in his ecclesial methodology. Now, I myself believe that the various Protestant traditions have certain gifts and strengths that Catholics lack. So I agree that the Catholic Church doesn't have everything that Protestant traditions and persons have to offer. But I cannot rationally justify moving from that premise to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is therefore not the institution Christ founded. Moreover, loaded into the use of the word "catholic" [small 'c'] as supporting anti-sectarianism is a 'mere Christianity' glossing over of the distinction between orthodoxy and heresy, and all that is necessary to make that distinction.

If Jeremy's objection to sectarianism is an objection to the treatment of institutions that were not founded by Christ as though any particular one of them is the institution founded by Christ, then I agree with him. But it did not seem to me that he intended his condemnation of sectarianism to be qualified in that way. He seemed to present his critique of sectarianism in an intentionally unqualified way. In that case, his condemnation of sectarianism would carry with it one of two assumptions: (A) Christ founded an institution but then it fell to pieces and no longer exists, or (B) Christ did not found an institution. But (A) is a kind of ecclesial deism, which I have previously discussed. If unity is a mark of the Church, then the Church cannot lose visible unity, even in the event of schism. (See "Has Christ Been Divided?".) On the other hand, (B) calls into question the formation of denominations (including the PCA) as organizationally outdoing even what Christ Himself saw fit to do in organizing and establishing His Church. If Christ did not found an institution, then the very justification for the existence of any denomination or ecclesial institution is undermined, as is the justification for forming a single overarching ecclesial institution. (See here.)

This internal self-contradiction is the reason that denominationalism must necessarily collapse in the long run into an anti-sacramental Evangelicalism in which institutionalism is eschewed (for sacramentality is directly tied to an hierarchical and institutional conception of the Church), and the conception of the Church as per se invisible is explicitly embraced. Denominationalism is an untenable middle position between Catholicism on the one hand and the ecclesial individualism and anti-sacramentalism of Evangelicalism, fundamentalism, and biblicism on the other hand. Jeremy is most definitely right to see that there is a treasure-trove of theological riches in traditions outside that of the PCA. So, his effort to encourage Reformed Christians to allow themselves to be enriched by these treasures is most definitely a step in the right direction. But at that point (i.e. the point of having rejected sectarianism), how are Reformed Christians any different from Evangelicals and their invisible "Christian Church"? At that point one must either embrace Evangelicalism as one's ecclesiological destiny, or begin to seek out the institution that Christ founded.

A Catholic evaluation of "An Evangelical Manifesto"

On May 7, a group of leading Evangelicals released a document they titled "An Evangelical Manifesto". There is much in this document with which Catholics can and do agree. I want to mention this common ground because here in this post I am going to focus only on a few points of disagreement, for the sake of those who may be interested to learn where and how and why a Catholic (as a Catholic) would disagree with this Manifesto. My focus on these points of difference, however, should not be taken to imply the absence of much common ground, but rather as helping to clarify that which still divides us, with an aim to reaching agreement and full visible unity.

It seems to me that the primary point of disagreement between [these] Evangelicals and the Catholic Church lies in the area of ecclesiology. Consider this line from the Manifesto:

"... Evangelicals form one of the great traditions that have developed within the Christian Church over the centuries." (p. 3)

What exactly do [these] Evangelicals mean by the term "Christian Church"? Their meaning of this term is clarified a bit later:

"Evangelicals are followers of Jesus in a way that is not limited to certain churches or contained by a definable movement. We are members of many different churches and denominations, mainline as well as independent, and our Evangelical commitment provides a core of unity that holds together a wide range of diversity." (p. 7)

The idea here is that the "Christian Church" per se is not an organized, institutionalized body. Evangelicals follow Jesus, not some organization or institution, because for [these] Evangelicals the "Christian Church" is not limited to or individuated by any organization, institution or movement. The "Christian Church" is therefore visible only in that her embodied members are visible. Thus as I have argued here, the term "Christian Church" can refer only to a mere abstraction, that is, a plurality, heap, set, or collection of persons, not an *actual* visible unity. For a more in-depth explanation and critique, see my post titled "Christ founded a visible Church" and the posts linked to therein.

The Manifesto continues:

"Evangelicals are therefore followers of Jesus Christ, plain ordinary Christians in the classic and historic sense over the last two thousand years." (p. 4)

Here too the document reveals a conceptual separation between Christ and the Church. According to this Evangelical conception, the individual believer follows Jesus, and is thereby (invisibly) made a 'part' of the per se invisible "Christian Church". But such a notion would have been entirely foreign to the first fifteen hundred years of Christianity. For Christians of the first fifteen years of Christianity, "he cannot have God for his Father who does not have the Church for his Mother." (St. Cyprian, De unitate ecclesiae) And for them, the 'Church' was a visible body, a hierarchically organized institution. For the Christians of the first fifteen hundred years of Christianity, to follow Jesus one followed the bishops that had been ordained by the Apostles, or the bishops who had been ordained by such bishops; that is, one followed the Church. To listen to the rightfully appointed leaders of the Church was to listen to those who had sent them (Luke 10:16; John 20:21), just as to listen to Jesus was to listen to the One who had sent Him (John 12:49; 14:24). For this reason the ecclesiology of Evangelicalism is not "classic" or "historic", except in the sense that it is similar to the Montanistic/gnostic conception of spirituality as churchless and non-sacramental. (For a more thorough explanation, see my post titled "Church and Jesus are inseparable".)

On the same page, the Manifesto reads:

"We are simply Christians, or followers of Jesus, or adherents of ―mere Christianity, but the Evangelical principle is at the heart of how we see and live our faith." (p. 4)

The very idea of "mere Christianity" is also a non-existent abstraction, as I explain in my post titled "Unity and Mere Christianity".

On page 7, the Manifesto reads:

"Evangelicals adhere fully to the Christian faith expressed in the historic creeds of the great ecumenical councils of the church ...." (p. 7)

Few Evangelicals affirm the line in the Nicene Creed that reads: "We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins". (See my post titled, "Baptism and Christianity Unity".) And those that affirm the line "We believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" would conceive of the Church referred to in this line as an invisible reality (i.e. not an organized, institutional body) having visible embodied 'members' (made to be members by subjective faith alone). Such a de-materialized conception of the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" is not the traditional historic conception of the Church or that had in mind by the "ecumenical councils" that were made up of bishops in sacramental succession from the Apostles.

The Manifesto continues:

"All too often we have failed to demonstrate the unity and harmony of the body of Christ, and fallen into factions defined by the accidents of history and sharpened by truth without love, rather than express the truth and grace of the Gospel." (p. 12) ... "We call all who follow Jesus to keep his commandment and love one another, to be true to our unity in him that underlies all lesser differences..." (p. 13)

These two statements also reveal that for [these] Evangelicals, 'schisms' are not actually divisions in or divisions from the "Christian Church". Rather, for [these] Evangelicals, schisms are merely failures to "demonstrate" visibly the 'existing [invisible] unity' of the "body of Christ", which for [these] Evangelicals is per se invisible, though they grant that the bodies of individual believers are visible. Catholics agree that the unity of the Church has not been lost and cannot be lost. Unity is one of the four marks of the Church listed in the Creed, and thus for Catholics, the Church can never fail to be one [unam]. So this makes it seem that Catholics and Evangelical agree on this point. But, in fact, the position of Evangelicals on this point differs significantly from that of the Catholic Church.

Evangelicals believe that the unity had by the [invisible] "Christian Church" is an invisible unity that cannot be lost (i.e. a unity had by an invisible, non-institutional 'entity'), whereas the Catholic Church has always believed and taught that the unity that cannot be lost is a visible unity, i.e. the unity of the hierarchically organized institution that Christ Himself founded on the Apostles. The problem with the Evangelical position is that it makes schism impossible. Schisms are reduced to mere 'branchings' (as I have argued here), and this creates the following dilemma: actual schism is either sinless or impossible. But schism cannot be sinless, and the possibility of schism is a test for orthodox ecclesiology, as I have argued here. Catholic ecclesiology is the only ecclesiology that passes that test while guaranteeing the unity of the Church. In Catholic ecclesiology schism is both possible and sinful, and yet no schism can destroy the *visible* unity of the Church and make "unity" no longer a mark of the Church (see here).

Clearly the reunion of Evangelicals with the Catholic Church will require a dialogue on ecclesiology, for that seems to me to be the fundamental point of division between Evangelicals and the Catholic Church. May our Lord Jesus bring us to that dialogue table, so that we may share together the Bread of Life at the Eucharistic table.

Papal Visit via Church Signs

Kansas City Catholic has it here.

Whence Goeth the Catholic Church?

Here's a snapshot of recent news stories regarding the Catholic Church over just the last two weeks:

Egan blasts Rudy for receiving communion: criticizes ex-mayor's abortion stance (April 28, 2008)

Is Liberal Catholicism Dead? (Time Magazine, May 3, 2008)

Archbishop Burke Named to Two Vatican Posts (May 6, 2008)

Directive from Archbishop Flynn ends lay preaching at Mass (May 7, 2008)

N.Y. bishop ends practice of Communion at celebration of the word (May 9, 2008)

Archbishop Naumann to Governor: Stop receiving Holy Communion (May 10, 2008)

Notice anything?

"To distance yourself from the Church is to reject the Spirit"

Pope Benedict gives his Pentecost homily (May 11, 2008)

In his Pentecost homily, Pope Benedict quoted the second century bishop of Lyon, St. Irenaeus:

"Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God, and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and every grace, and the Spirit is truth; to distance yourself from the Church is to reject the Spirit" and thus "to exclude yourself from life" (Adv. Haer. III, 24, 1).

That is the antidote to Montanistic conceptions of the Holy Spirit's activity that conceptually separate the Spirit from the visible Church and from the sacraments, or redefine the Church into an invisible entity such that the 'Church' just is (by definition) whoever has the same spiritual/subjective experience and resulting belief that 'I' have.

Concerning the unity of the Church, Pope Benedict said the following in his homily:

"The Catholic Church is therefore not a federation of churches, but a single reality: The universal Church has ontological priority. A community that is not catholic in this sense would not even be a Church."

Packed into those two sentences is the ecclesiological key to achieving full visible unity. The Catholic Church that Christ founded is not a mere plurality, set, aggregate or collection of 'parts', whether they be individual persons, particular Churches (e.g. the Church at Jerusalem, or the Church at Antioch), or denominations. Christ founded an ontological reality, a *universal* (i.e. Catholic) Church, from which the particular Churches have their being (that is what Pope Benedict means by "ontological priority"). Here is the most fundamental difference between a bottom-up ecclesiology represented in the Tower of Babel, and a top-down ecclesiology represented by Christ breathing on His disciples, and then at Pentecost sending the Spirit down upon them as would occur at each valid ordination in succession from the Apostles.

Former Anglican priest (Fr. Peter Geldard) on "The Journey Home" tonight

Fr. Peter Geldard

Former Anglican priest (and now Catholic priest) Fr. Peter Geldard is on EWTN's "The Journey Home" tonight. In light of the Vatican's recent statement regarding the choice facing Anglicans in the upcoming Lambeth Conference, Fr. Geldard's experience (recounted here) is another example of the way in which the two Cities are dividing, even while the City of God is coalescing.

3,000 Assyrians received into full communion with the Catholic Church

Three thousand Assyrians were received into full communion with the Catholic Church this weekend, led by their bishop (Mar Bawai Soro, pictured at right) who became convinced of the unique role of the primacy of the episcopal successor of St. Peter in grounding and preserving the unity of the Church. The story, including an excerpt from Bishop Soro's paper "The Position of the Church of the East Theological Tradition on the Questions of Church Unity and Full Communion" is available here.

This is just the beginning, in my opinion.

Pentecost and the unity of the Spirit

"Pentecost"
Jean Restout II (1692 - 1768)

For weeks I have been eagerly anticipating Pentecost, partly because having been raised Pentecostal, I find myself naturally gravitating toward this day when Jesus poured out the Holy Spirit. But in addition, the greatest hope I have is in the power of the Spirit. We can do nothing apart from the Holy Spirit. Apart from the Spirit, all our efforts are mere straw and dust, powerless, pointless, profitless -- another voice in the cacophonous sea of voices, cast up for a moment and then tossed aside by the sweep of time and entropy, forgotten forever. But the Holy Spirit seems to delight in taking enervated self-sacrifices, and using them to accomplish unbelievable miracles. He melts hearts of stone and opens blind eyes. He brings men to the point of decision, showing them that today is the day of salvation, leading them to ask, "What must I do to be saved?" He revives the dead, awakens the sleeping, enlightens the benighted, empowers the feeble, emboldens the cowardly, and confounds the wisdom of this age.

The Holy Spirit draws men of good will together, in genuine unity through Christ. On this feast of Pentecost, the Church is "praying for unity, knowing that God can work miracles" (see here). Nothing is too difficult for Him; His power exceeds what we can even imagine. If our hope were in ourselves, we would have no reason for hope. But our hope and trust is in the power of the Holy Spirit to bring all Christians into full visible unity, and that He may be pleased to use our prayers and letters and conversations and even our failings and sufferings to do so.

St. Paul writes: "being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace". (Ephesians 4:3) The "unity of the Spirit" is the unity that has been given to the Church by the Spirit on Pentecost. The Spirit transformed men who formerly quarreled about who would be greatest, into men who made themselves into each other's servants, with all kindness and brotherly affection. We cannot understand Pentecost until we understand it in relation to Babel (see here). The purpose of the Church is to reverse Babel, not by man's own efforts, but by the power of the Holy Spirit working through the Body of Christ, to incorporate all men into that Body. As the power of the Spirit had overshadowed Mary when she conceived Jesus in her womb, so also on Pentecost the Holy Spirit fell once again on Mary who was with the Apostles in the Cenacle, and the mystical Body of Christ was born that day. But Pentecost did not end. Into that mystical Body "men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation" (Revelations 5:9) are being incorporated, by the power of the Holy Spirit working through the Church and her sacraments. The Church is in this way a sign to the world of man's original social purpose, the union of all men. In the mystical Body of the Second Adam, by the power of the Holy Spirit, the fruits of the first Adam's sin (i.e. division and strife and dissension and schism) are done away. Instead of murdering our brother as did Cain and the children of Cain, we now, incorporated into this mystical Body, lay down our lives for our brothers, as the Second Adam did for us.

In his Apology, Tertullian wrote:

"Vide", inquiunt, "ut invicem se diligant" - ipsi enim invicem oderunt - "et ut pro alteruto mori sint parati"; ipsi enim ad occidendum alterutrum paratiores erunt.

See, [say the pagans], how they [the Christians] love [i.e. are devoted to] one another", for they themselves [i.e. the pagans] are animated by mutual hatred; "how they [i.e. the Christians] are ready even to die for one another", for they themselves [i.e. the pagans] will sooner put [each other] to death." (Apology, 39)

Those are the two cities. My dear brothers and sisters, let us be diligent to seek peace and unity with each other in the blessed city of God, by the power of the Holy Spirit, and let us bring as many with us as we can into that peace, not trusting in our own strength or wisdom, but in the power of the Spirit to work daily miracles and bring the light of the Gospel into the world. Our days are numbered, and our time is short. Let us make the most of it.

Lord Jesus, on this Pentecost please pour out your Holy Spirit on us anew, that we may participate in your work, in fulfillment of the desire of your Sacred Heart that all those who believe in You would be one, as You and the Father are one (John 17). And let our work be fruitful and its harvest abundant both now and in the age to come.

"Come, O Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of Thy faithful and kindle in them the fire of Thy love." We cast ourselves upon You, and entrust ourselves entirely to You, for only in You do we have hope.

Christ founded a visible Church

HT: Dave Armstrong

One impediment to achieving full visible unity among Christians is the rather common notion that full visible unity is neither necessary nor desired by Christ. Some persons have claimed that it is God's will that Christians be divided into various sects and schisms. In January, I replied to that claim (here), arguing there that we should not countenance the idea that Christ would mutilate His own Body and Bride. To accuse Christ of such a thing is to call evil good, and to blame God for the sins of men. How could we expect Christian husbands to love and respect their wives if we believed that Christ Himself mutilated and dismembered His own Bride? Yesterday I encountered a rather similar claim here; see my comments in the combox there.

What chiefly lies behind the apathy regarding the pursuit of full visible unity is a certain type of conception of the Church. According to this conception of the Church, the visibility of the Church is merely the visibility of her embodied members. I have explained and critiqued here and here the notion among various Protestants that the visibility of the Church is merely the visibility of her embodied members. Here I want to add a bit more to what I said there.

If you were to look at me, you would see my body, not just the members (i.e. parts) of my body. Only some sort of reductionist would claim that there is no body here, that there are only parts or members of a body. But that reductionistic perspective is a distorted, myopic (abstractive) way of looking at a body. It sets aside one's perceptual recognition of the body per se, and thereby allows oneself to see only the parts of that body. In that abstractive, reductionist perspective, the viewer allows himself to see only a plurality of parts, not an actual unified whole. But in our ordinary perceptual mode (prior to putting on reductionistic blinders), we perceive bodies as actually existing unified wholes, and their members as parts of those wholes. Of course there is another sense of 'see' in which if you were to look at my [living] body, you would also see my soul. You would not see my soul in the same way you would see my body, but you would see my soul *through* my body. That is, my soul would be revealed to you through my bodily acts, not just through my vocalized speech, but even through my bodily gestures, arm gestures, facial expressions, and even my posture.

What does this have to do with the Church? The Church is the Body of Christ. (1 Corinthians 12; Colossians 1:24) Because it is a Body, it is essentially visible (see Satis Cognitum 3). The Church per se is visible, just as my body per se is visible. The notion that the Church is visible only because her embodied members are visible is just as reductionistic and abstractive a point of view of the Church as it is when said of my human body. The notion that the Church is visible only because her embodied members are visible denies [implicitly, but not explicitly] the existence of the Body. According to this notion there are only 'body parts', not an actual Body. This notion is based on the type of anthropological dualism that treats the human person as a spirit making use of what is, given this ontology, merely a collection or aggregate of material elements. According to this notion, the human person per se is an immaterial soul or spirit that presently happens to 'occupy' or make use of what is, given the ontology, nothing more than a plurality of spatially collected material 'parts'. Likewise, according to this same anthropology, the Church per se is invisible and spiritual. Those holding this position *claim* that embodied believers are "members" of the Body of Christ. But the conception of membership in use here is necessarily stipulative, as I shall explain. (That is why I have been putting 'parts' in single quotes.)

Parts can only be parts of a whole. If there is no whole, there can be no parts. But since the notion that the Church is visible only because her embodied members are visible denies [implicitly] the existence of the Body, there is no material whole here. Nor can material elements (being material) be parts of an immaterial whole. Hence according to this ontology, embodied believers cannot be parts or members of the Church in anything more than a stipulative sense. According to this ontology embodied believers are mere elements (not parts), even if they are made use of by the immaterial entity which (according to this view) the Church per se is.

According to the Catholic position, by contrast, the Church per se (not just her embodied members) is both visible and spiritual, just as a human person is both visible and spiritual. A human person is visible because he or she has (and is) a body. My body is not merely something I use; my body is part of me. To touch my body is to touch me. But I also have a spiritual principle, a soul. In the same way, according to the Catholic position, the Church per se (not just her embodied members) is both visible and spiritual. (See CCC 770 and 771.) Her life is the divine life of Christ her Head. (See here.) Her members are incorporated into a visible Body sharing one essence (i.e. one confessed faith), one shared act of sacramental worship (i.e. "one bread"), and hierarchically ordered under one visible head (i.e. the 'papa' of the "household of faith" which is the Church). Similarly, in just the same way that you can see my soul *through* my body, so also in the Catholic view, we can see the Holy Spirit through the Body of Christ, for the Holy Spirit is the soul of the Church. "What the soul is to the human body, the Holy Spirit is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church." (CCC 797)

The dualist anthropology always ultimately collapses into one of two errors, like the vices on both sides of a virtue. Either it reduces the human person to a collection of particles/elements (think of the positions of Daniel Dennett or the Churchlands), or it reduces the human person to an immaterial entity (cf. Descartes' dualism). Both errors eliminate the human body as an essential constituent of the human person. Likewise, this dualist anthropology applied to ecclesiology either reduces the Church to the collection [or set or heap] of individual believers (see here), or it reduces the Church to the Holy Spirit, rather than perceiving the Church as the mystical Body of the incarnate Christ. To understand the nature of the Church, we need to understand the human person (i.e. philosophical anthropology), precisely because the Church is the Body of Christ, and He is its organic Head, not merely its king.

If a person conceives of the Church as only visible because her embodied members are visible, he will have no incentive to seek full visible unity among all Christians. According to the dualistic anthropology, what makes a 'part' belong to this person is an invisible connection to an invisible spirit. The unity of the 'parts' is spiritual; hence visible/bodily/institutional unity is unnecessary. In a Thomistic understanding of the human person, by contrast, a part of a human body belongs to that human person because that part belongs to the person's body. And the part belongs to the person's body not because of some merely invisible relation to the body, but because of an essential, dynamic, and ordered incorporation into and communion with that body. Such a conception of the Body of Christ demands full visible unity.

Protestant ecclesiologies tend to treat the Church per se as invisible, leaving only her embodied members visible. The Church, in Protestant ecclesiologies, is not a visible *institution*. It is not, for example, the PCA, or the OPC, or the LCMS, or the AoG, or the SBC. None of these Protestant institutions claims to be *the* visible Church that Christ founded, nor even claims that Christ founded an "institution". They claim to be (at most) *part* of the visible Church. But they would deny being part of some larger visible institution. Therefore the Church per se (given their ecclesiology) is not visible; only its embodied members (whether they be individual human beings and/or denominations) are visible. But if the Church per se is not visible, then full visible unity is merely optional, contingent upon political or social expedience and circumstance. If, however, the Church per se is visible, then all Christians should be diligently seeking full visible unity. In this way we can see that our philosophical anthropology plays a very significant role in what we conceive to be the goal of ecumenicism, as well as our perception of the importance of achieving that goal.

God can miraculously restore Christian unity if we are open, Pope Benedict urges

The article is available here.