CHAPTER 9

Is It Ecclesial?

Our fin al methodologica l criterion fo r good theo logy is the eccles ia, the church or fa ith community. The ecc les ial criterion means that we ask of any the-ologica l stance, way of di sc ipl eship, miss ion, fo rm of worship , and so on: Is it of the church :? Or, to enlarge upon that: Is it in criti ca l continuity with the church's theologica l traditions and with the ecumeni ca l Christi an community throughout the world? Another class ic way of putting the question is to ask: Is it catholic'>

So stated, this is intentionall y a very broad criteri on in that, given the enor-mous breadth and variety of the Chri stian church th ro ughout hi story and around the world , one could answer yes to a great va ri ety of stances or practices. This criteri on is not meant, then, to be a constricting stra itjacket des igned to confine Christi ans within narrow rules or strict theo logical boundari es. A theo logy that seeks to be Christ-centered and fa ithfully biblical is likely to be eccles ial as well , since an eccles ial theology is one that, in its li stening to Chri st and scripture, also takes the fa ith community se riously, including the historical community, some-times ca lled the "great cloud of witnesses" (Heb 12: 1) of those who have gone before us and have passed on to us a ri ch traditi on, both of acti ve di sc ipleship and theologica l thought.

In keeping with the basic chri stocentrism of our theologica l method, it is essenti al to point out that the ecc les ia we speak of here is not simply the Church of Goel , but specifica ll y the Church of Jesus Chri st. We speak of the "churches of God in Chri st Jesus" ( 1 Thess 2: 14; cf. also Rom 16: 16; Gal 1 :22). The church is onl y the church if it is built on and defined by Jesus Christ, by hi s past, pres-ent, and future. Members gather in his name, are baptized in hi s name, receive his body and blood, and rejoice in hi s resurrecti on. " Where two or three are gath-ered in my name I am there among them" (Mt 18:20). To speak methodologica lly of an authority of the church is to speak of the authority of thi s community whose faith , worship, and miss ion are centered in him and fo unded in him . The con fes-sion of Jesus Christ, then, is constituti ve of the church, and it is only as Chris t '.1·

church that it can be a criterion fo r fa ith and theology. 1

270

Is It Ecc/cs ial? 2 7 1

An eccles ial theology li stens to the church's tradition and traditions, but also to that present, worldwide ecumenica l community of Chri sti ans as it worships and struggles, thinks and confesses the faith in many pl aces and circurnstances around the world . Qui te sirnply, a good theology will be one that has li stened to the voices of the past and also to the di verse vo ices of the present. But thi s cri te-rion too , like the others, must be understood dialectica ll y with our praxis cri te-ri on: ls it li fe -giving and liberating? Certainly not every traditi on is to be honoured or fo llowed. A traditional or dominant practi ce or doctrine will be fo und wanting if it is destructive of life and liberty (these concepts being under-stood in and th rough Christ). Thi s will entail li stening especially to the voices of "the least of these," since Jesus identifi ed hirnse lf especially with them (Mt 25:40, 45). The opti on for the poor and rnarginali zed, then, comes into play as a cri tical hermeneutic when traditional and eccles ial criteri a are considered. So also, the chri stologica l cri te rion must be at work here; that is, a traditional or dominant stance of the church cannot be allowed to stand if it is not congruent with our best understanding of Jesus Chri st. Yet our typical circularity pertains here too: our best understanding of Jesus Christ depends on our li stening to the church.

A full eccles iology is not our task here; our interest is the way in which "church" functi ons in theo logical method. But we need to say what we mean by church. Ek-k/esia, in the Greek New Testament is, literall y, those who are "call ed out," that is, the gathering or assembly of believers. The eccles ia is the commu-ni on (koinonia) of Christi an people who share fa ith, hope, and love in union with Jesus Christ, th rough the koinonia of the Holy Spirit. The church, then, is a com-muni ty of the knowledge of God, of common worship and prayer, di scipleship and miss ion. Christi an people li ve out their discipleship not in isolation as indi-viduals but in the communi ty of "the body of Chri st" ( 1 Cor 12; Rom 12) and therefore do theology also in community. This is why theology can never be a merely individualisti c activ ity, since Christi ans, as members of Christ's body, are "members one of another" (Rom 12:5). Theology is done according to the gifts of the Spirit within the church, in the context of worship and prayer. To reiterate a point we have made at each earli er phase of our study, thi s is not an a priori, but an a posteriori (after the fact) judgment. Christi an theology actually and essentiall y occurs within community. To compare the di sc ipline of theology to other di sciplines of knowledge and thought, we may refer to the eccles ia as "a community of verification."

The Ambiguity of "Tradition"

"Tradition" is an ambiguous and ambivalent term in the New Testament. fn the last chapter we noticed that in the teaching of Jesus in the Gospels the term "tradition" is sometimes used pejoratively to speak of merely human traditions

272 Other Indispensable Criteria of Theolog ical Adequacy

as opposed to God's truth , and thi s criti ca l approach can be fo und still in the post-resurrecti on church (e.g., Co l 2:8). But even in the ea rli est Chri sti an literature we also find pos iti ve refe rence to traditi on (2 Th ess 12: 15; 3:6; l Cor 11 :2) , where Paul speaks of the trad itions of the gospel which he received and has handed on to the new churches. Thus we see that the question of the authori ty of traditi on was already a cont rove rsia l concept in the ea rl y church and has continued to be throughout Chri sti an hi story.

"Traditi on" is, litera ll y, that whi ch has been handed down, handed on , or handed over (Lat in : tradere). Traditi on, in methodological parl ance, has come to be di stingui shed from scripture (though in one sense scripture is the first or ear-li est traditi on). One can speak very broadl y of Chri sti an traditi on, but there are many di stinct Chri sti an traditi ons throughout the world . The parti cul ar tradition within whi ch a specific church famil y or communi on lives may be seen as a kind of contex t that, I ike other aspects of context, functions as a source of predi spos i-ti ons fo r theo logy.

ln di scuss ions of theo log ica l method, " tradit ion" in the singular usuall y refers to the dominant theologica l doctrines and concepts that have reigned in the church th ro ugh the centuri es , through counci Is, creeds, and offi cial confess ions. It often refers more or less to commonl y accepted orthodoxy (right teaching) that has shaped ecces ial contex ts- prac ticall y, li turgica ll y, theologica ll y- over the centu ries. When we speak pos itively about tradition in this sense we honour the thought of the great theo logians who have shaped our thought and practice dec i-sive ly (though we would not all agree whi ch ones should be placed on the li st) . It is imposs ible to avo id di stingui shing between authentic understandings of the gospel and heresy- those that fa lsify or di stort the message. In large measure theology is just thi s: di stinguishing true from false, or better from worse, arti cu-lati ons of Chri st ian fa ith. But we may also honour some of the hereti cs of his-tory, who, though they were fo und to be in error (and we may or may not still thin k they were in error) made important contribu tions by putting fo rward solu-tions or fo rmulations that he lped the church to clarify its doctrine. One may well wish to honour some of the losers of the theologica l battl es of the ancient church- Ebionites or doceti sts, Arius, Apollinari s, Nestorius, and others-who did their best to be fa ithful and th rough their effo11s pushed others to sharpen their understanding of the person of Christ. Today we blush when we think of how the hereti cs o f past generations were treated. In recent decades critical refl ection on traditi on has rai sed questions of whether "tradition" refers mainly to the views and practi ces of the "winners" of old theological controversies. Per-haps some of the time they won their battles for extraneous reasons, such as the support of an emperor, preva iling cultu ra l attitudes, the dominance of males in the church's hierarchy, or rampant racial or reli gious prejudice. Theological tra-ditions of anti-Judaism, fo r example, di scoverabl e in many class ic theo logies and even in scripture,2 have been found culpabl e in view of the atrocities of the twen-tieth century. Certain viewpoints expressed by great orthodox fa thers, such as

Is It Ecclcsia /? 2 73

Augustine, or great reformers and church fo unders, such as Ca lvin or Wes ley, may now be thought to be erroneous, even heret ica l. Consider Augustine 's rather duali sti c (Platon ic) attitude lo body and soul , or Ca lvin 's doctrine of double pre-destination, or Wesley 's doctrine of Chri st ian perfec tion. None of these is widely regarded today as orthodox teaching. If we consider the long hi stori ca l support fo r the great evi l of slavery, we see that fo r most of its hi story the church fa iled in orthoprax is (right practi ce) as we ll as orthodoxy. Or, if we consider the atti -tude of almost all hi stori ca l theo logians to womankind , we rea li ze that heresy (di storti on of the Chri sti an gospel) has been almost uni ve rsal on this topic until the late twentieth century. Femini st theologians especiall y have rightly criti cized the long and heft y trad itions of the theo logica l abuse of women3 and have searched not onl y the story of Jes us and the scriptures but also the church's minority traditi ons for a life-g iving, "usable past,"4 that is, Christ ian traditions that have supported the equality of women with men. Thus, we may speak of "minorit y traditions," whi ch should now be regarded as orthodox. Streams of thought and activity that have not been regarded hi stori ca ll y as orthodox are sometimes championed in contemporary theo logies . I think, fo r exampl e, not onl y of certain traditions of women's theology (often fo und in the medieval women mystics, fo r example, or the ea rl y-twenti eth-century suffrage movement) but also traditions of soc ial justi ce and care of the poor (e.g. , St. Francis, the soc ial gospel), or theology of the cross and of the suffe ring of Goel (in Luther). Jn recent years these have been redi scovered and brought forw ard as inspiring exampl es and precursors of where theology needs to go. Ideas that once seemed hereti ca l have become orthodox.

Tradition as Context

Traditions do function as context, not onl y in the broad historical and ecu-menical sense bu t also in parti cular fa mili es or communions of the church and with in certain times and places. That thi s chapter on thi s criterion is placed last in our study of method is no accident, given that this author is Protestant, and Canadian/North American at that. A Roman Catholi c author, or perhaps even a European Protestant author, or certain Protestants in Korea or Africa may more likely have placed tradition and eccesial authority ahead of contemporary con-text, ve ry close to sc ripture and to the Chri stie center. Further, that I have placed tradition within the wider concept of eccles ia together with contemporary ecu-menical vo ices would seem once aga in to subordinate and reduce the import of tradition as such fo r theological method. These choices no doubt refl ect the author's own eccles ial context within a liberal North American denomination. Protestant tradition in general has not tradit ionall y placed traditi on ve ry high as a norm fo r theology' Protestant tradition has a tradition of subordinating tradi-tion to scripture! The sixteenth-centu ry Reformation, after all , was a mass ive

274 Other Indispensable Criteria of Theological Adequacy

cri tici sm of accumul ated traditi ons that ex isted in late medi eval Catholi cism and drew upon scripture as the source of liberation from oppress ive traditions and established ecc les iastica l authority. As a dyed-in-the-wool Protestant, this author stands unapologeti ca ll y (though not uncri tica ll y) within this traditi on.

Yet aga in , not onl y as a Pro testant but also as a Canadian/North Ameri can, thi s author has a built-in contex tual suspi cion of tradition. Our ancestors (or at least some of them, both biologica l and spiritual) came to this continent to live in a new world free from oppress ive and constri cting traditi ons. The individual-ism of moderni ty, ev ident in Europe from Descartes on , becomes especially pro-nounced in North America. To li ve within this tradition of modernity (and even more so in some kinds of pos tmodern ism) is to be automat ica lly suspi cious of offi cial authority of any kind , especially the authority of old dogmas and creeds that seem to give pri or authority to histori c community over the present individ-ual. As Hall puts it, with chagrin : "Before the tribunal of the se lf, the most sacred and time-honored teachings of re ligious communities are nothing but matters of taste and opinion. "5 Acknow ledging such Protestant and North Ameri can predis-pos itions, one must be self-criti ca l and recognize that traditi on cannot be ignored, that we are influenced by tradition more than most of us like to think, and that any Christian theo logical work supposes a tradition and takes up a pos i-tion within the fl ow of tradition6 On the other hand, traditionalism, as a substi-tute for hearing fo r oneself God's own living Word , can be another fo rm of spiri tua l laz iness, even a kind of fideism, of believing and I iving com fo rtably "on the labours of others" who have gone before us. 7 In the light of the Christi e cen-te r and what we have ca lled the prax is criterion , we rejoice that many aspects of old traditi ons have already been widely discarded: slavery, the subordination of women, double predestinat ion, and so on, and no doubt more will be di scarded in the future. Possi bly other aspects of older traditions will be recovered: perhaps a wider and deeper appreciati on of the doctrine of the Trinity (which in recent years has been receiving new attention); perhaps a renewed appropriation of grace, or of eschatology. We need, then, to have a balanced attitude of respect fo r a ri ch heritage , while not absolutizing the understandings, practices, and fo rmu-lations of the past.

Tradition (as l have been suggesting concerning my own methodological predi sposi tions) fun cti ons in fac t as an inevitable context for theology. Even if (like Descartes) we seek to shed all preunderstandings and start from scratch, as it were, we are who we are theo logically in large measure because of the spiri-tual /religious context in whi ch we grew up or were originally nurtured in fai th. Even if we have rebelled aga inst our personal formation, that aga inst which we have reacted may still form us, perhaps unconsciously. But more commonly, we are shaped positi vely as Christi ans by our nurturing in some particular eccles ial tradition. What moves us and feeds us in worship, what inspires us to action and guides our decision making, both practica ll y and intellectually, depends consid-erably on the forms of worship we are used to, the teachers and pastors who

Is It Ecclesial? 275

influenced us within a particular denomination , and the particular aspects of the broader Chri st ian tradition that were emphasized in our origi nal nurturing com-munity. We may get a glimpse of this if we listen in on a conversat ion between two devout Christian women, both quite well informed and committed members of their respective churches. The one, Maria, is Roman Catholic; the other, Catherine, a member ofa mainline Protestant denom ination in the Reformed tra-dition. They are away on holiday together.

Conversation

M ARIA : Oh, it :S· Sunday tomorrow. I have to find out where the church is so I can go to Mass.

CATHER INE: Oh, a good idea! Maybe I 'II go with you, or maybe there'.s· a Protes-tant church around here somewhere. I must say, I admire your commitment to going to Mass. Is it expected? I mean, are you obligated to go even when you 're away?

M AR IA: Well, yes. But that 's not why I go. I mean I'm not going to be punished or damned or anything if I don i make it. If I don i go to Mass 1 just miss it so much. I mean I just f eel that it puts me in touch with God, you know? ft sets me up for the week. When Jim and I were traveling abroad I didn 1 always manage to.find a Catholic church, and when I 'd missed itfor two or three weeks I actu-allyfelt . .. sort of disoriented. I was actually hungry for ii. I don i know. I can 1 quite explain it.

CATHER INE: No, I know what you mean. I feel that way too if I don i get to church for awhile. But we don 1 have communion every Sunday. I just like to be with the congregation. I enjoy the hymns and prayers and scriptures, and especially a good sermon.

MARIA: Yes, but for me it s really the Mass. Its nice 1f you know the people and have a good sermon and so on, but for me it s really the Mass that I need. if I went to church and there was no Mass I 'd feel I hadn i been to church at all.

CATHERINE: Is that because.for you the bread and wine are actually the body and blood of Christ? Like transubstantiation and all that?

MARIA: Well . .. yes. I realize it s symbolic and I can 't give you a technical expla-nation of it like a priest could, but, yes, l feel I'm really receiving Christ himself That :S· what I 'm hung1y.for. It :S· not just a little bit of bread I 'm eating. If! thought it was just a bit of bread I don 1 think I 'd bothet: And besides [with an embar-rassed smile] I was brought up to think that s a horrible heresy!

276 Other lnrfis1iensable Criteria of Theological Adequacy

CATI IER INE : Well, yes , and I was o!iva)!s told that Catholics have some prelly cm zy ideas! [Both laughing] But tha t ~- in teresting Commun ion is important to 11s too. We sing about meeting the Lordface to face, and we believe that Jesus is present \·Vi th 11s in co1111 111.mion in a s1iecial way Our minister says it '.5 a special means o/gmce. B11tf(Jr /lie I guess i i ~- the sermon. I/ I went to church and there was no sermon I'd f eel I 'd heen cheated The sermon is always based on the Bible. and I expect to . . . hear the /!Vind of Cod, I guess. That ~- what sets me up /(Jr the week.

We should not regret or de plore this in fl uence of trad iti on. It is a ri chness that we have received. But it is va luable fo r us to recognize how it operates as a given in our consc iousness and the role it plays in our theo logica l thinking. Cer-tain ideas, practi ces, or commi tments are almost automati c fo r members of some trad iti ons. Mennonites , for exa mpl e, know they should be pac ifi sts, and even if they have their personal doubts about tota l pac ifism, they are a lmost automati-ca ll y aga inst any parti cular wa r. They wo uld not obj ect to a rousing pac ifi st se r-mon from their pastor, but a sim ilar sermon from a mainline Protestant pastor might get him in tro uble with hi s congregati on. For most Protestants , it is not seriously imag inab le that they could ever believe in the in fa llibil ity of the pope (even when that concept is pro perl y quali fied), while most Roman Catholi cs, even if they have their doubts about it (and even if they di sagree with him), do not find the idea so absurd and wi 11 trea t the pope's pronouncements with great respect. Moreover, among Roman Catholics one noti ces a greater respect for tra-diti onal dogma and fo r the creeds. A near uni versal willingness to perfo rm the sign of the cross in the name of the Trinity speaks vo lumes about the pl ace of tra-dition fo r most Catholic peop le. Ma inline Protestants, if they are conservati ves , reserve such respect fo r scripture and know that they should be read ing the Bible da il y. If they are li bera ls, they wi 11 tend to give very little weight at all to tradi-tional dogmas or creeds but may have a ve ry acti ve conscience about being invo lved in charitable or soc ia l-j usti ce act ion. And whether they recognize it or not, thi s too is a kind of traditi on. Traditi on as context is about the way our nurturing Chri sti an communities predi spose us to what we find credible or acceptable.

Tradition and Scripture

How should we construe the relati on of tradition to holy scripture? How are they to be di sti ngui shed and used methodologica ll y in such a way as to honour our primary norm, the li fe -giving Christ, and our chri stologica ll y determined prax is cri terion? We need an attitude to tradi tion that is life-giving rather that deadening or stultifying, one that libera tes us to hear the li ving Word- Jesus Chri st, in the power of the Spirit- fro m the scriptural witness. As we thin k of the

Is It £cclesia/? 277

Holy Sp irit speak ing to us aga in and aga in in new ways from the scripture, we also need to recognize the continuing work of the Spirit in the ongo ing life of the church through the authoritative teaching of church council s, of creeds, of prac-tical leadership, and of teaching authorities. We should think of tradition not only as something from the past but as something that is constantly being shaped cre-ati ve ly in the present , to be handed on to the future. For example, in the earl y twenty-first century we can already speak of the tradition of social gospel theol-ogy, of the new tradition of Pentecostalism , of the tradition of neo-orthodoxy, of the young traditions of liberat ion and feminist theologies, and most recently of ecological theologies, whi ch we have received from the century just behind us and which are very much ali ve today. In all of these cases, tradition and traditions were shaped in a pos iti ve relat ion to scripture. We have to think of tradition , then, not onl y as something from the very remote past but as something that is con-stantly grow ing and renew ing it se lf.

Scripture itse lf, of course, is a tradit ion. lt is the fa ithful witness of Israel and of the earli est ch urch, handing on to succeeding generat ions its testimony to decisive reve latory, sa lvific events . Where the New Testament is concerned, it is accurate for Chri sti ans to refer to it as " the first traditi on." We find church fathers as ea rl y as the second century citing as authoritati ve sources what we now treat as scriptural or canonical texts , and they did so because they regarded them as aposto li c witness. This set it off as distinct from any later writings, in that the witness of the apostles placed them, and still places us, as close as poss ible to the ori ginative revelatory events. To quote Robert Jenson once aga in , " lf the apos-tles did not get it ri ght, no one ever did ."8 A certain gray area ex ists, though, between the latest New Testament writings (perhaps the pastoral epist les) and writings of the so-called apostolic fa thers- such fi gures as Clement of Rome (who wrote 1 Clement about 96 C.E. ) or Ignatius of Antioch (35- 107), whose Let-ter to Smy rna may be earlier than some canonical texts .9 As we saw in our chap-ter on the Bible, the defi niti on of what should constitute canonical scripture has been controversial, and the exact ending point of the apostolic age is indefinite.

Nevertheless , a distinction has been drawn between scripture and tradition from very early times. The earl y father lrenaeus (c.130-c.200) in hi s Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies) distinguishes scripture from extrascriptural truths , or alleged revelations or traditions. We can see why he felt the di sti nction was necessary, since he was concerned to refute the ideas of the gnostics , who claimed special esoteric gnosis or know ledge and cited the thoughts of their own leaders as authoritative. lrenaeus insisted that only the tradition deri ved from the apostles should carry weight in the church, and constantly he debates the gnos-ti cs using scriptural texts. 10 More than a century later, the great fat her of the Council of Nicaea, Athanasius (296-3 73), also argued fo r the suffi ciency of scripture for the establishment of Chri sti an truth and argued his trinitarian chris-tology from scriptural texts .11 We begin to see authority given to ex trascriptural tradition in the theology of the Cappadocian theologian Basil of Caesarea (called

278 Other lnrlispcnsablc Criteria of Theological Adequacy

St. Basil the Grea t, 330-379). In hi s On the Holy Spirit Basil declared that some aspec ts of Chri sti an truth are found not in scripture but equall y in traditions of the church, including written and unwritten traditions , even secret oral traditions passed clown by the apost les through their successors. 12 In the Latin West, Augustine (354-430) also speaks of the authority of extrascriptural ora l tradition and ascribes much authority to the church as such, which moves the fai thful to honour the authority of scripture. In turn , according to Augustine, the scripture refers the fa ithful back to the authority of the church and its oral aposto lic tradi-tions. Even here "aposto li c" authority is foundational, since extrascriptural tradi-tions are said to be apostolic in origin .13 In later centuries Basil and Augustine were often cited in support of ex trasc riptural teachings and pract ices, and by the late Middl e Ages, just pri or to the Reformation, it was common fo r popes and bishops to regard their own author ity as the authority of the church, more or less on a par wi th scripture. Now it was taught that the Holy Spirit abides with the church and continuall y gives her new inspiration . Debates raged among canon lawyers about the relative authority of popes and councils, while at the same time some theologians conti nued to press fo r the ultimate authority of scripture. 14 The parallel authority of tradition tended to hold sway, however, from about the time of Augusti ne. Early in the fifth century, Vincent of Lerins declared that the reg-ula jidei (rule of faith) must hold sway for all interpretation of scripture or doc-trine, so that one must look for " uni versa lity, antiquity, consent," and " that which has been believed everywhere, always and by everyone." 15

It is not difficult to see how tradition understood in this way might functi on as guarantor of a deadening status quo. On the other hand, traditions might also pro liferate, so that abuse of power might well occur, and many innovations in doctrine and practice might develop that are not congruent with Christ or scrip-h1re, nor contextual or li fe-g iving in any constructi ve way. By the time of Luther in the earl y sixteenth century and even in the century before him, there were many who were concerned about the corruption both of doctrine and of practice and called for a return to the ori gina l apostolic sources. These included the defeated earl y protesters John Huss ( 1371-1415) and John Wyclif(l328-1384), both declared heretics because of their attacks on extrascriptural papal and eccle-siastical authority, and northern European humanists, like Erasmus ( 1466-1536) and Johannes Reuchlin ( 1454-1522), who remained Catholics through the Refor-mation period.16 Martin Luther ( 1483 -1 546) was also declared a heretic and was placed under papal condemnation and slated for execution. He was, of course, the prime mover of the Reformation, and his assertion of scripture over tradition and church authority (a viewpoint shared by some others of his time) was basic to the whole movement.

As a scripture scholar and highly conscientious monk, Luther came to find many of the structures, teachings, and practices of the church deeply oppressive. He came to believe that the doctrine of the freedom of God 's grace had been negated by the church's teachings about sa lvation as the reward of both faith and

Is It Ecclesial? 279

good works, and that ecc les ias ti ca l rul ers had abused their extrascriptural author-ity, di storting doctrines to buttress the ir own power and wea lth. The story is we ll known of the papal legate Tetze l coming to Luther 's town o f Wittenbe rg preach-ing the sa le o f indulgences fo r the fo rg iveness of sins, and for the re lease of departed loved ones from purga tory- for a price ! Aga inst a ll o f thi s, Luther asserted hi s radi ca l theo logy of justifi cati on by g race a lone, through faith a lone. For him thi s was enormously liberating, and he had deri ved it fro m sc ripture, espec iall y from the letters of Paul. O ne could say that hi s doctrine of so fa scrip-tura- the so le, suffi c ient, and incomparable authori ty of the Bible in the church- deri ved from hi s own experi ence o f liberation fro m oppress ive teach-ings and practices o f the church of hi s day. Scripture had authority because its words had grasped hi s mind and heart and re leased him fro m despa ir, thus g iv-ing him life. Subsequent doctrines of sacraments and of the priesthood of all beli evers fl owed out o f hi s scriptu ra ll y based doctrine of j usti fi cation. His fa mous and courageous words in deba te with the pope's representative, which we already heard in our chapter on scripture, bear quoting once aga in : "A simple lay-man armed w ith scripture is to be be li eved above a pope o r a counc il without it. .. . ne ither the church nor the pope can establi sh articl es of fa ith . These must come fro m Scripture . For the sake of Scripture we must reject popes and coun-cil s." 17 Luther was not so naive, however, as to think that a Chri sti an could sim-ply read the Bible and come up eas il y w ith uncontro ve rsia l truth . He did think that the Bible was essenti a ll y clea r and could be read and understood by laypeo-ple, since a ll beli evers are pri ests, and he ins isted that no powerful individua l could di ctate its correct interpretat ion. Nevertheless, he denied that indi vidua ls in iso lation could interpret the Bible correctl y without the he lp of tradi tion or lea rn-ing. Luther acknowledged the creeds and ecumenica l counc il s of the ancient church and frequentl y referred to church fa thers, espec ia ll y Augustine, to back up hi s own in terpretations of scripture. In debate w ith Cardinal Caj etan, Luther acknowledged a certa in traditiona l and eccles ia l authority when he dec lared : " I am not consc ious of going against Scripture, the fathers, the decreta ls, or ri ght reason . .. . I may be in error, l submit to the judgment of the universities of Base l, Frei burg, Lou vain and , if need be, of Pari s." 18 Yet, at Worms before the emperor, Luther refused to recant hi s teachings unless persuaded by "the testimony of Scriptu re and by clear reason." 19 Tradition and eccles ial authorities, then, were not by any means di smissed by Luther, but they were not to be seen as indepen-dent authoriti es on a par with scripture . The ir hermeneuti ca l functi on is rea lly the eluc idation of the meaning of scripture. Sola scriptura never meant that theo logy was to be done by reading the Bible onl y and by itse lf, but it did mean that the Bible was incomparable and stood alone as source o f the gospe l of Chri st. We have already seen, in our chapter on scripture, that Luther again subordinated the words of scripture to Chri st, who is " Lord and King of scripture."20 We find in Luther, then, a thoroughly Christ-centered theologica l method in which scripture , interpreted under the authority of Chri st, interacts wi th what we have called the

280 Other Indispensable Criteria of Theolog ical Adequacy

praxis criterion- ls it li fe-giv ing and li berating? He would never, of course, have asserted expli citly such a subjecti ve cri te ri on. For him , ve ry clea rl y, it is Chri st and sc ripture that inform us as to what is life-giving and liberating. Whil e we may say that hi s substanti ve starting point and cri terion for good theo logy is "Chri st in scripture," we may nevertheless poin t out that hi s ex istenti al or ex pe-ri enti al sta rting point was his sense of the liberation and li fe , joy and hope, which he derived fro m his study o l" the Bi blc. 21 At the same time, hi s interpretation of scripture- even if he was de llant agai nst the cec lesial authority of hi s ow n time- was also ccclesia l, in that it grappled with traditi onal sources and sought to be in dialogue with others in the Chr is ti an community.

We should note that the other major reformers closely resembl ed Luther on the doc trine of scripture and in their attitude to traditi on. Ca lvin (as we noted in an ea rli er chapter) certa inl y held a ve ry hi gh doctrine of sc ripture as authored by the Holy Spirit. He oft en speaks of "traditions" or "human traditi ons" pejora-ti ve ly referring to the "popish doctrine of the obliga ti on of traditions. "22

Extrascriptura l ecc lesial traditi ons are not to be entirely and simpl y rejected, however. He frequently refers to the authority of church fat hers, acknow ledges the creeds and ea rl y council s without hes itation, and recognizes an authoritative orda ined mini stry in the leadership of the church. But all of thi s must be subor-dinated to and authori zed by the authority of sc ripture as the Word ofGod. 23 It is noteworthy that Ca lvin was criti cized by Servetus on the grounds that hi s doc-trine of the Trinity was traditi onal and not scriptural , just as Luther was simil arl y criti cized on the sacraments by Zw ingli and Calvin , and that Lu ther, Cal vin , and Zw ingli were all cri ti cized by the Anabapti sts fo r supporting a traditional, unscriptural doctrine of in fa nt bapti sm.24 Thus, we sec that the relat ion of tradi-tion to scripture is not a simpl e matter. Despite the freedo m and dynami sm that often mark Protestant churches, an obvious weakness of the traditions of the Reformat ion has been their tendency to splinter into many groups, lack ing a clear authoritati ve center of scri ptu ra l interpretat ion.

In response to the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent ( 1546) took stro ng steps fo r the practical reformati on of the church. It reacted stro ngly aga inst so /a scr ip tura, insisting, in line with Bas il the Great, that the authori ty of tradition was not less than that of scripture, that both were from God and should be rece ived wi th equal reverence. Beli efs and practi ces such as prayers fo r the dead , praye r to the sa ints, infa nt baptism, and the perpetual vir-gini ty of Mary could be taught on the church's authori ty wi thout sc riptural war-rant. 25 This line of thought culminated in the nineteenth centu ry wi th the promul gation of the doc trine of the immacul ate concepti on of Mary ( 1854), and at the First Vati can Council ( 1870) the doctrine of the primacy and in fa llibili ty of the pope. Jn 1950 an encyclica l of Pope Pius XII , f-fumani Generis, spoke of"two sources of reve lati on"- scripture and traditi on- with the li ving magisterium or teaching authority of the church as a kind of third locus of theologica l truth , dependent on scripture and traditi on. The great reforming counc il , Vati can 11

Is II Ecclesia/? 281

( 1962- 1965), adopted an open, ecumeni ca l stance toward other Chri sti ans and presented, in its document Dei Verbum, a view of a li ving and deve loping tradi -tion and magisterium in dynamic relati on to scripture. As Avery Dull es expla ins,

Since the three are co inherent, no one of them ca n be used as a totall y independent source to judge or va lidate the other two . Theologica ll y, Scripture has no normati ve va lue except as read in li ght of tradition and under the vigil ance of the magisteriurn . Traditi on and magisteriurn , con-versely, have no va lue except as referred to Scripture. 26

Most Protestants would still have diffic ul ty giving thi s much weight to either tra-diti on or magisterium . But Protes tants have not simpl y di scarded tradition al creeds and dogmas, or an auth ori zed teaching offi ce.

Creeds, Dogmas, and Teaching Office

Despite grea t ongoing diffe rences between Catholics and Protestants on the relati on of tradition to scripture, and major continuing disagreements about many doctrinal matters stemm ing in part fro m this di fference, certain im portant simi -lariti es should be noted. An authenti c Reformati on concept of so fa scrip tura should recognize the acti ve importance of tradition for the interpretati on of scrip-ture. We have seen thi s clearly in both Luther and Calvin . Protestant churches have usuall y acknow ledged the ancient creeds and counci ls, and in fact have usu-all y interpreted the scriptures th rough the lens of such traditi ons. The fo llow ing preamble to the doctrinal statement of the Uni ted Ch urch of Canada ( 1925) is fai rl y typica l of the att itude of the class ical mainstream Protestant churches on scripture and trad iti on:

We build upon the fo undation laid by the apostles and pro phets, Jesus Chri st Himself being the chi ef cornerstone. We affirm our be! ief in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the primary source and ultimate standard of Chri sti an fa ith and li fe . We acknowledge the teach-ing of the great creeds of the ancient Church. We further maintain our allegiance to the evange lica l doctrines of the Reformation.

It is interesting that, while Chri st is chief cornerstone, scripture seems to have, here, the status of norma normans. In the second art icle, "Of Revelation," we find the same fo undational authori ty ascribed to Jesus Chri st, together with what seems now to be a very high doctri ne of scriptural authori ty :

In the fullness of time [God] has perfec tl y revea led Himself in Jesus Christ, the Word made fl esh, who is the brightness of the Father 's glory

282 Other Indispensable Criteria of Theolog ical Adequacy

and the express image of 1-1 is person. We rece ive the Holy Scriptu res of the O ld and New Testa ments, g iven by inspiration of Goel , as conta in-ing the only in fa llibl e rul e of fa ith and life, a fa ithful record of God 's grac ious reve lat ions, and the sure witness of C hri st. 27

In a Protestant document of the ea rl y twe nti eth century, the " in fa lli b le rul e" that is "contained" in scripture appea rs Lo be a po inted rejecti on of the in fa ll ibili ty of the pope (p romulgated at Vati can I in 1870). While scripture, as w itness to God 's reve lat ion and Word and " the sure w itness of C hri st," is ou r most autho ritati ve tangib le source, we need to ack nowledge that anc ient creeds, late r confess iona l sta tements, and even recent creeds used in I iturg ies actuall y ca rry cons iderabl e we ight in the way we think theo log ica ll y. It is not uncommon fo r theo logians, theo log ica l students, or mini sters to c ite the Apos tl es' Creed or the N icene Creed in the presentati on of a theo log ica l argument. T he reader w ill have noti ced that in chapter 5 of thi s book l drew heav il y upon both sc ripture and tradi tion, as we ll as conte mporary contex t and ex peri ence, to articul ate the identi ty and miss ion o f Jesus C hri st. Even w hen creeds a re not mentioned, we tend to read scripture through the lens of traditi ona l creeds, and to some degree thi s happens uncon-sc iously. The creeds, espec ia ll y if they are used often in worship, take on acer-ta in a utho rity. In my ow n de nominat ion, a new creed, intenti o na ll y contemporary, dating fro m the 1960s and updated tw ice,28 is we ll be loved and carri es a kind of gentl e implic it authority in theo log ica l conversati on. To argue : "Even our new creed says ... " is enough to clinch the argument in some Bible stud y meetings or theo log ica l seminars. The effect of thi s is that traditi on and the w ider fa ith commu nity, whether anc ient or recent, are brought to bear on the interpretati on of scri pture. Thi s serves the unity of the community and its mi s-s ion, in that indi v idual opinions, sometimes rather w ild and off-the-wa ll opin-ions, are to some degree constra ined . Thi s in itse lf is life-g iv ing. When we stand and confess ou r fa ith together, we ex press our so lidarity in one fa ith, not onl y in the loca l congregati on but across w ide boundari es of time and space. Jn the case of the ancient creeds, we express fa ith in ways that have stood the test of time, in words that have been uttered by our forebears fo r many centuri es, and in ways that transcend particular nat ionaliti es and ideolog ies. This defends the church aga inst fads and individ ua li st ic in te rpretations; he lps to avo id o ld errors, long di scarded fo r good reasons; and a llows fo r a breadth and depth that wo uld oth-erwise be miss ing.

A Lutheran theo logian w ho speaks very pos itively of trad iti on and creed is Robert Jenson. For him , the creeds communicate dogma, the authoritati ve, per-manent, and offici al teaching of the church. A creed is "a confess iona l fo rmula that has acquired dogmatic standing."29 Though "dogma" has become an extremely unpopular word , espec iall y in relative ly libera l denominati ons, it nev-erthe less fun ctions among us, espec ia ll y, as Jenson po ints out, at the po int o fbap-

Is It Ecclesial? 283

tism and confirmation, when people are asked : "Do you believe ... ?" in rela-tively fixed liturgical forms. Questions at ordination too are asked in officially prescribed ways. It means that in fact not every belief is acceptable in the church and certain beliefs are not optional for members of the Christian community, especially its leadership. That is why the ancient councils often ended their pro-nouncements with words of condemnation for those who disagreed: " Let them be anathema'"

We are rightly uncomfortable today with harsh treatment of doctrinal dis-senters; we are now much more aware of the fragility of our theological convic-tions and less inclined to cry "heresy'" We know that we all live in glass houses and that our own ideas could be judged heretical, if not today, then a decade or two from now. Yet we would deceive ourselves if we thought that dogma does not function within our communities. Even in very liberal congregations, there are limits to what one could say from a Christian pulpit about Jesus, about eter-nal life , or about the love of God. It would not be acceptable to the people, for example, to preach a Hindu doctrine of karma and reincarnation from most Christian pulpits , even if not a few members might privately hold such opinions. Dogma functions , in fact, in both conservative and liberal ways. Jn some circles and contexts, it is heretical to use inclusive gender language, either about human-ity or about God. Yet in other contexts (often regional or national conferences or synods) it is heretical not to do so; it provokes scandal and indignation! Certain social and political stances are heretical (regarded as distortions or falsifications of the gospel message) , for example, the theological defence of apartheid since the early 1980s or any denial of the full equality of women. Even if we dislike and avoid the word "dogma," the question of heresy is very much alive in our contemporary churches, which continue to be scenes of theological struggle.

Jenson perhaps goes too far, however, when he speaks of a dogma as an "irreversible rule offaith. "30 Surely this is to absolutize human formulations. We may indeed be very reluctant to consider overthrowing such basic ecclesial deci-sions as the creed of Nicaea. Even if we choose to use a different language or conceptuality (e .g. , if we no longer find its language of " substance" or "being" very useful), we may still wish to affirm its intent concerning the unity of Jesus Christ with God.31 But we do not continue to affirm this simply because Nicaea said so. The doctrine of the incarnation of God in the flesh of Christ, as we have seen, is itself a radical biblical teaching, asserting the absolute importance of earthly, fleshly existence and God's solidarity and unity with the poor and vic-tims. 32 Ancient creeds and other traditional confessional statements are not beyond criticism. It is common, for example, for Christians of liberationist per-spective to criticize the creeds for passing so quickly from Jesus' birth of the vir-gin to his death under Pontius Pilate. What of his liberating, life-giving ministry of teaching, preaching, healing, and solidarity with the poor? What of the politi-cal significance of his struggle with the powers of the day and his political death? These elements of the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth were sorely neglected

284 Other Indispensable Criteria of Theological Adequacy

in the traditional creeds and have been downplayed in the preaching and the teaching of the churches for centuri es.33 It is also poss ible fo r established creedal traditions, if we ighted too heav il y, to become a factor of staleness. Creeds should not become a substi tute fo r scr ipture or for fresh heari ng of scripture. Creeds and confessio ns, if people are unduly committed to them, may even quench the work-ing of the Spirit and God 's speak ing, here and now, in and through the Scrip-ture,34 and so foster a fa ith that is anything but life-giving. What we need is a critical continuity with the church's creedal traditions.

And what of the church 's ongoi ng teaching authority? The Roman Catholic Church, as we have seen, forthrightly locates its teaching authority in the magis-terium of' pope and bi shops, exercised through encyc lica ls and Vatica n in struc-tions , enfo rced by bishops in their di oceses and episcopall y ordained priests. The term "magiste rium" carries a connotation of domination , mastery, and rul e th at is unpalatabl e to Protestants, who tend to imag ine that they have no magisterium. Yet Protestants do in fact have authoritative bodi es, whether houses of bishops, genera l assembli es or council s, genera l synods, and so on, which exercise author-ity in relati on to both theo logica l and practical questions. Even when these bod-ies are democrat ic in structure, they do function as a kind of magisterium or teaching authority. Protestants would find it unthinkable that any such teaching authority could be in any sense infallibl e, since, after all , the whole Refo rmation was premised on the rea lity that by the sixteenth century the magisterium of Rome had gone seriously wrong both in practice and in doctrine and needed to be corrected by a return to scripture. Nevertheless, without some recognized teaching authority, there is no one to defend the church aga inst false teaching or individuali sti c opinion. As Jenson points out, " the church must have a vo ice with which to speak for herself to her own members. To affi rm thi s, we need not com-mit ourselves about a mandated or appropriate location of teaching authority. " One need not affirm Rome as the divinely ordained locus of true teaching. It has been obvious to Protestants since the time of the Reformation that Rome pro-vided no guarantee of truth . Yet Jenson goes on, " it is aga in the teaching author-ity by which Scripture and dogmatic texts can asse rt themse lves."35

We need to acid , though, that the teaching authority also performs a neces-sary function when it promotes new understandings necessary for a new time. At critical moments, fresh , contextual , and prophet ic teaching may come forth even from a minority synod, such as the 1934 Barmen Declaration against Nazi reli-gious ideo logy in Germany, or an international confessional body such as the World Alliance of Reformed Churches aga inst the heresy of apartheid in 1982. The ruling body of a confessional communion may not only defend ancient orthodoxy but also authoritat ive ly set fo rth new teaching that is believed to be implied by our commitment to Chri st. I think, for example, of the official encour-agement of inclusive language and the ordinati on of women and of gay and les-bian people (the latter two innovative dec isions taken by the United Church of

Is It Ecclcsial? 285

Canada in 1936 and 1988 respect ive ly). Here Jesus ' own option for the marg in-alized comes into play. To cite another exampl e: to offic ially promulgate, in creedal form , " to live with respect in creation" in a time of ecological crisis is another exa mple of fresh teaching by a church 's teaching authority that is life-givi ng and liberating3 6

An aspect of the function ing of the church's teaching au thority is the insti -tution of ordained mini stry. In the ear liest church the apostl es fulfilled a unique authoritative function of leadership and teaching, but it was especiall y when the apostles died that the church needed to govern itse lf and defend its authentic teaching in va rious insti tu tiona l ways, including the canon of scripture, the creeds, and structures of recogn ized leadership. Thus arose the notion of an authoritative apostoli c succession. It became abundantly clear, however, during the time of the Reformation , that such a succession to the apostles , through lay-ing on of hands by bishops in a perpetual succession from the apost les , did not guarantee authentic or fa ithful teaching or Chri st ian practi ce. The church's apos-tolic ity was not ensured by a juridica l process of ordination, but depended on the fresh working of the Spirit in and through fait hful peop le. Calvin argued that "the pretence of succession is va in , if posterity do not retain the truth of Christ." True apostoli ci ty , then, " is not fo unded upon the judgments of men or the priesthood, but upon the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets (Eph ii. 20)."37 Centuries later, Jlirgen Moltmann , in the same Reformed tradition , has suggested that the apostolicity of the church should be conceived of not only in terms of continuity with aposto lic doctrine but also in term s of the aposto li c miss ion . "Apostle" (from the Greek aposte /16) means one who is "sent" on a mi ssion:

The hi storical church must be ca lled "apostolic" in a double sense: its gospel and its doctrine are fo unded on the testimony of the first apos-tles, the eyewitnesses of the ri sen Chri st, and it ex ists in the carrying out of the apostolic proclamation , the mi ssionary charge. The express ion "apostolic" therefore denotes both the church's foundation and its com-mission. 38

This Reformed understanding of apostolicity replaced epi scopal authority with scriptura l authority, both fo r teaching and practice. Not only the ordained mini s-ters but the whole church parti cipates in this apostolicity, and therefore Bible reading and study have always been encouraged for the laity. Nevertheless , scrip-ture requires interpretation. Not onl y the Roman Catholic and Orthodox, but also the Lutheran, Baptist, Mennonite, Reformed, Anglican, Methodist, and Pente-costal traditions (among others) honour various traditions of ordered min istry, recognized beyond the local congregation, with individual s who function author-itatively as bishops or as pastors. While no specific pattern fo r such ordering is divinely mandated, this kind of office of ecclesial superv ision is warranted in

286 Other Indispensable Criteria of Theological Adequacy

scripture, which speaks of the episkopos and presbyteros (1 Tim 3: 1-2; 5: 19; Tit I :7 ; I Pet 5: 1 ), supervi so rs and e lders who, through the ir office , exerc ise a kind of magisteri a l authority fo r the churc h. This too is an important and indi spens-able aspect of ecclesia lity, which fun cti ons as a g ift of the Spirit to the church . As we have seen, gifts of the S pirit include " the utterance of wisdom . . . and the utterance of knowledge acco rding to the same Spirit" ( 1 Cor 12:8). In Romans 12 Paul mentions, among other functions , prophecy, ministering (serving) , teach-ing, exhortation, leading, a ll tasks assoc iated (though not exc lus ive ly) with what have come to be ca lled "c lergy." E phes ians mentions "gifts" that some are apos-tles , some prophets , some evange li sts , some pastors and teachers, and their func-tion is c lear: " to equip the sa ints fo r the work of mini stry" (Eph 4: 11 - 12). Since all Chri stians are ca lled to ministry and miss ion , and a ll are equa lly pri ests in the " priesthood of all be li evers" ( I Pet 2 :5 ; Rev 1 :6; 5: I 0) , the task of what we have come to call orde red o r o rda ined ministers is to "equip the sa ints" for their a ll-important ministri es in the world .

To ack now ledge the importance of o rdai ned offi ce is not to suggest that the being (esse) of the church depends on this office. The Protestant churches gen-era ll y have fo und no chri sto log ica l o r biblical gro unds for believing that such office is constituti ve of the church, s ince it is only C hri st's presence and the con-fess ion of Chri st by the people that constitute a community of people as a church of Jesus Chri st 3 9 Neverthe less it is sure ly for the bene esse (we ll-bei ng) of the church that such an office ex ists and that part of its task is to se rve the integrity of the church 's faith and theology.

We would emphas ize aga in , however, that the teaching authority of ordered ministers, who are authori zed to preach and teach and admini ster sacraments in the congregation and to offer pastora l care, is not solely to defend established tra-ditions, but a lso to speak and lead in new and propheti c ways under the inspira-tion of the li v ing C hri st, th rough the Spirit.

Unity, Catholicity, and Ecumenicity

I suggested at the beginning of thi s chapter that a good theo logy is ecclesial in the sense that is "of the church"- in critical continuity with the church 's tra-diti ons and with the ecumenica l Christi an community throughout the world; that is , it should be "catho li c theo logy." The premise here is that the church is essen-tially one, as in Paul 's vis ion of the church: " in one body we have man y mem-bers" (Rom 12:4); " in one Spirit we are a ll baptized into one body" ( I Cor 12: 13 ). According to John 's Gospe l, Jesus prayed " that they may all be one. As yo u, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, that the world may be lieve" (Jn 17 :21 ). The tex ts teach us that the unity and peace of Chri s t 's fol-lowers are a hope derived from the unity of the triune God. The Letter to the Eph-esians, which so emphasizes the breaking down of a ll the barriers of human

Is It Ecdesial? 287

alienation and the hope for one new humanity through Christ, al so appeal s to Chri stians to lead a Ii fe

with a ll humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every e ffort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the 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 a ll. (Eph 4:2-6)

It is for good reason , then , that C hri stians have always aspired to be one and at peace as (in the words of the Nicene Creed) "one, holy, catholic and apostolic. " In all of these marks of the church, whereby it seeks to measure its own authen-ticity, the church has never "arrived ," is always seeking and hoping to be true church. Its unity is in Christ, for there is only one Body of Christ, yet in actual-ity this unity is never fully reali zed ; it is something the church strives for, hopes for, and prays for. The church's holiness or sanctification also derives from the holiness of C hri st (I Cor I :30); it can never claim to be holy in itself, yet it strives to reali ze a measure of Christ's holiness in its own life .40 The church 's apos-tolicity, as we have discussed above, is its faithfuln ess to the apostolic message and mission , and this too can never be taken for granted or guaranteed, but must be striven for and struggled for. But what is the church's catholicity? And why must a good theology be "catholic theology"?

Not a New Testament term for the church, the Greek katholikos means gen-eral , comprehensive, or universal. The church father Justin Martyr used the term in this sense to speak ofa "catholic resurrection" and " catholic prayer," referring to the hope for universal resurrection and prayers for all people. It was also used early in the second century by Jgnatius of Antioch to distinguish a true from a false, heretical , or apostate church. 41 The catholicity of the church, then , has to do with its continuity and identity through all its differences . Karl Barth suggests that a church is catholic as " true church activating and confirming its identical being in all its form s."42 If a church is not catholic, it is perhaps heretical , apos-tate (unfaithful) or simply parochial , cut off from the larger body of the Christian people. But "catholic" need not be seen as primarily a disciplinary or restrictive concept. Positively, a church is catholic when it is open to the universality of God 's reign , when it is as inclusive as possible, straining after the universal inclusivity of God 's love for the whole world in Jesus C hrist. In this sense it is, like the church's unity and holiness, an eschatological dimension , having to do with the universal , unlimited breadth of Christ 's mission. 43 It is unfortunate that Protestants of various kinds have often allowed the term "catholic" to be surren-dered to the Roman Catholic Church and have allowed the term to be contrasted with the generic "Protestant." "Protestant" has its own positive meaning, from

288 Other Indispensable Criteria of Theolog ical Adequacy

Latin protes/atio and protestari, referring to those who so lem nl y declare, bear witness, or protest,44 and has come to be used to refer to almost all non- Roman Catholics in Western Chri sti anity. However, Chri stians of all the major families or communi ons of churches seek to be "catholic ," genuinely members of the one body of Chri st, and therefo re part of the one, holy, uni versa l, and aposto li c church.

Nol onl y the chu rch as such, but a Christian theology will also stri ve to be ca tholic when it seeks to express fai th at one with the whole church of Jesus Christ th ro ugh time and throughout the world . The term "ecumeni ca l" has in recent years taken on a simil ar mea ning. The church is extended throughout the "whole inhabited earth " (oikoumene) and therefore an "ecumenica l" theology will seek to be open lo ex press ions of faith from all over the world. Everyone is limited in this respect, of course, s ince no finite mind can attend to all the voices. While such li stening impli es the search for a kind of orthodoxy or ri ght teaching, as we ll as a kind of orthoprax is or right practi ce, I suggest that it does not imply, necessaril y, a conformity to dominant teachings and practi ces. Orthodoxy and dom inance should not be eq uated , given that orthodoxy or right teaching is never fi nal, but always sh ifting and dynamic, responding to the living Word ofa living God . A truly catholi c and ecumen ica l church, I suggest, li stens fo r what the Spirit has taught all the churches, is open to all traditions and to the churches of all times and places. Perhaps we need especially to be open to those most unlike us, those whose perspectives mos t sharply challenge our own. Reformed li stening to Orthodox, Orthodox li stening to Anabaptist, Catholic li stening to Pentecostal, and so on , may serve the ca tholicity of the church profoundly. However, quite apart fro m denominational or traditional di vides, those aligned with dominant traditions or contex ts need to be open especially to minori ty or marginali zed vo ices. Protestants especia ll y, whether Lutheran, Mennonite, or Reformed, should know this, in that their trad iti ons began as small , beleaguered minorities, accused of heresy and threatened with death and damnation. Those who are gen-uinely catho li c may sometimes have to stand alone, as Luther did , declaring, " Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me." This does not mean that every minority movement is genuinely catholic or that no serious heresies or apostas ies ex ist. It does mean that the majority can be wrong, that catholicity cannot be measured by mere numbers, but must be measured by faithfulness to Christ.

Here, too, our praxis criterion- ls it life-giving and liberating?-must come into play, since Chri st is the one who liberates and gives life. Listening to the vo ices of "the least of these," with whom Christ is identified, will be essential to an eccles ial and catholic theology. Thus, a North American, white, male theo lo-gian, if he wishes to be catholic, must especially li sten to women, to people of colour, to theologies that ari se out of situations of poverty and marginali zation , and to people who live and arti cu late faith out of very different cultural contexts.