Brian Chiu
Introduction
The
twentieth century is called the age of Ecclesiology and Eucharistology within Orthodoxy, as much
has been developed concerning what the Church is and what the value of the Eucharist
is. The Orthodox ecclesiology, like its other Christian doctrines, has
undergone a long-history evolution and has refined its expression in the face
of changing social, political and theological circumstances, in which the Church
is defined or determined, and an ecclesiological mindset that is part of
everyday life.[1]
There are a number of contemporary Orthodox theologians who give great
contribution to the renewal of Orthodox thinking on its ecclesiology in the twentieth
century, such as Georges Florovsky (1893–1979), Nicholas Afanassiev (1893–1966),
Vladimir Lossky (1903–1958), Alexander Schmemann (1921–1983), John Meyendorff (1926–1992),
Kallistos Ware (1934–) and John Zizioulas (1931–).
Orthodox Ecclesiology
can be understood as “sacraments” in Western terminology. The word “sacrament”
is originated from the Greek word mysterion, mystery. Pseudo-Dionysius
the Areopagite defines “sacraments” as: “Truly visible things are manifest
images of things invisible.”[2] On
the Orthodox understanding of the mysteries, there is a distinction between “sacraments”
and “sacramental,” that “sacraments” is never isolated from the Church as
Western Church, but that any actions performed in the Church are mysteries and
possess a “sacramental” character because the Church itself is “sacramental” by
nature.[3] Even
the whole Christian life should be seen as “a single mystery or one great
sacrament.” Based on this understanding of the Church, the Orthodox Church
developed its unique “eucharistic ecclesiology” – the Eucharist as the
realization of the mystery of Christ within history – as the common action (leitourgia)
of the Church, that which constitutes her very being and her vocation.[4]
About the
same time of the development of contemporary Orthodox ecclesiology, there was
one of the largest and most dynamic Christian movements, the “local Churches”
(LC), founded in China. It was found by Watchman Nee (1903–1972) in 1920 and
brought to America in 1962 by Nee’s coworker Witness Lee (1905–1997). One of
the LC doctrines which seems ambiguous to many Christians outside this group is
its ecclesiology. Though LC never uses the terminologies of “sacrament” or “liturgy”
explicitly, LC emphatically regards Christ as the mystery of God (Col. 2:2), and
the Church as the mystery of Christ (Eph 3:4), that the incarnate Christ
visibly expresses the invisible God, while the Church visibly expresses the
invisible risen and ascended Christ. These two mysteries, Christ with the Church,
are the “great mystery” (Eph 5:32).[5] In
this sense, LC ecclesiology can be defined as a “sacramental ecclesiology” as
well, that the Church visibly manifests the mystery of the salvific act of God
in Jesus Christ.[6]
My goal
of this paper is to argue that the Orthodox Church and Local Churches
Movement both hold a similar view of the sacramental understanding of the
Church and the deification of the Church, yet they follow different approaches
of achieving their goal:
The Orthodox Church marks the eucharistic and
liturgical celebration of the Church the focus of her identity, constituting
the highest expression of her existence; whereas,
Local Churches takes the words of God along with
the Spirit of God as the means for believers’ daily
enjoyment, and in the Lord’s Supper,
the identity of the church is symbolized as well as manifested.
I will begin my analysis with the
nature of the Church, which are is essential to both traditions, and then
present the views of their sacraments, especially the Eucharist (or the Lord’s Supper,
an alternation usage of LC). At last, a comparison of commonalities and
dissimilarities of their sacramental views of the Church, and comments on their
strengths and weaknesses will be given. I hope,
following the increasing ecumenical dialogues in the twenty-first century, that
this paper can make a contribution to reconsider: “What does it mean to be the Church,
and how does it relate to the value of the Eucharist from the perspectives of
Eastern Orthodox and of LC?” and can establish a bilateral dialogue between
two traditions.
PART I: Eastern Orthodox Church
A. Nature
of the Church
1. Divine Economy of Salvation and Deification
In the Orthodox
view, the Church originated with the divine economy of salvation in
pre-eternity, which is about the unity between human and God, culminating in
human deification (theosis), and inheriting the eternal life in the
kingdom of God.[7]
Orthodox understands in the divine economy of salvation, the telos of
human life is being directed towards deification, becoming like God, or in
biblical synonymous word, “glorification”. As Paul
says, “that He [the Father] would grant you, according to the riches of His
glory,” (Eph. 3:16) and also “that you may be filled with all the fullness of
God” (3:19), the Church is designed before the foundation of the world, and is
designated to be glorified, to be deified, which does not mean to be honored as
God Himself, but to partake of the uncreated glory of God. Traditionally, Orthodox uses
Gregory Palamas’s “essence–energies
distinction” to describe the process of deification to preserve the distinction
between created and uncreated. Kärkkäinen comments that compared to Western
theology, Orthodox theology links its ecclesiology specifically with a gradual
growth in sanctification culminating in deification by the work of the Spirit.[8] Before
creation, the Church is created, continuing in the Old Testament, and that through
the Christ’s incarnation, humans may
participate in the divine life in Him and attain deification (2 Peter 1:4).[9]
2. Incarnation and Journey of Christ
For the Orthodox
Church, the nature of the Church derives from Christ, the incarnate Son of God,
and her experience closely follows the journey of Christ. John of Damascus
describes that the mystery of the divine salvation economy for humanity is
centered in the incarnation of Christ: “Accordingly, the incarnate Son
of God, the God-Man Jesus Christ, being the Mediator between God and humans,
presents an ideal example of humanity, without which there is no salvation.”[10] On
the purpose and significance of Christ’s
incarnation, Athanasius emphasizes that the Word assumed human nature in order
to deify humankind.[11] Through
Baptism, Christians are united with Christ, becoming the real members of the
body of Christ, which is the Church. The Church as the body of Christ means
that she partakes in the whole life of Christ within her own being. As Gregory
of Nazianzus says, “Travel without fault as a disciple of Christ through every
stage and faculty of His life…that you may rise with Him, and be glorified with
Him and reign with Him,”[12] the
Church experiences all stages of Christ in the divine economy, namely, the
cross, passion, death, resurrection and ascension, which her head, Christ,
experienced. All sacramental and ascetic life of the Church according to the Orthodox
tradition, are aimed at the deification of humans by following the journey of
Christ, her head and savior.
As the Church
is Christ’s body, mysteriously
united with him, she is a not a mere human organization, but a divine-human
organism, the mystical body of divine-human Christ. Meyendorff says, “In
the West, the Church developed as a powerful institution; in the East, it was
seen primarily as a sacramental (or 'mystical') organism, in charge of 'divine
things' and endowed with only limited institutional structures.”[13] Zizioulas
also claims, “Christ without his body is not Christ, but an individual lowest
category.” He views Christ of a “corporate personhood” that Christ cannot be considered in terms
of isolated individuality, but of personhood in communion corporately.[14] Therefore,
it is evident that the orthodox mind of the Church is Christological.
3. The Eucharist, Locus of the Church
The understanding
of the nature of the Church, to the Orthodox Church, is rooted in the centrality
of the Eucharist, both in the life of the believer and throughout the life
of the whole Church. The Orthodox Church preserved the profound connection
between the Church and the Eucharist based on Paul’s words of
the Eucharist in 1 Cor 11:18: “for first of all, when you come together as a Church, I hear that there are
divisions among you.” According to this, the Orthodox Church suggests that the Eucharist
gathering of the believers in a locality is identified with “the Church”. As Cyprian
of Carthage says, “where the Eucharist is, there is the Church,”[15] Orthodox
thinks that the Church discovers and realizes her true identity in her
eucharistic celebration:[16] the
union with God in Christ. In each local Eucharistic gathering under the
presence of the local bishop, there is a reality
of the communion (koinónia)
of the Body of Christ lived out that makes all participants incorporated into
the One Christ (cf. 1 Cor 10:16–17).[17]
The Orthodox
view emphasizes the Church as more a reality which we live than an object which
we examine. They employ different images which manifest this communion and
union of Christians with Christ. For Schmemaan, eating of foods and
drinking of drinks are most distinctive imageries of this life communion
and union given by the Bible. He suggests humans as a hungry being, hungry for
God. A human life by “eating”, depends on food, and is constituted by what he
eats.[18] God
Himself is the only source of the eternal life, and His desire is to give His
life to humans so that humans may participate in His life. In the eucharistic
experience, eternal life is communicated to humans, given again as sacraments, so
that all members of the Church become communicants of eternal life, ascending
to heaven where Christ has ascended, being immersed in the new life of the
Kingdom.[19]
B. Sacraments
of the Church
1. Holy Mysteries
Sacraments
of the Church stand in the Orthodox mind at the center of the Church’s life
and mission. They are not viewed merely as symbolic significance or merit of
ritual, but that in each sacrament the person is drawn farther into the
encounter with God who transforms and transfigures.[20] All
the sacraments of the Church have transformative character for both the individuals
and the whole congregation. In the Church and through the sacraments, God’s grace
is mediated to humans and brings human nature into the mystical union with the
divine nature, united with the person of Christ in the power of the Holy
Spirit. Thus, all sacraments are “mysteries” and the whole life of Church is
sacramental life.[21] Generally,
the Orthodox Church does not limit the number of sacraments to seven, but holds
that anything the Church does as sacramental as the nature of the Church per
se is intrinsically sacramental.
2. Focus – Eucharist
The most
profound “mystery” among all the sacraments with transformative characters is
the Eucharist, which is characterized as “essentially a meal,” both symbolic
and mystical.[22]
Members of the Church, by participation in the liturgy and receiving the
consecrated bread and wine, may directly communicate with God and be deified.[23] Maximus
the Confessor holds that the Eucharist manifests two things in a broader
context cosmology and eschatology:
first, the divine economy, what God has done and is doing for humans, and second,
the movement of the human’s soul, progressing
towards deification to become the “image of God”.[24] Following
this thought, Gregory Palamas defines the Church as a “communion of deification”,
as he shows the Church’s purpose
is to lead the human to deification through the Eucharist.[25] Ziziolous
summarizes that the Eucharist is the foundational act of the Church that makes
the Church what it is.[26] In
sum, it is the Eucharist which makes the Church, because the Eucharist offers the
primary way that the Church participates in divine sonship in Christ and unites
with God.
3. The Presence of Christ
In regard to the presence of Christ, the Orthodox Church
believes that, in the Eucharist, the bread and wine are transmuted (metabole)
into the genuine body and blood of Christ through the operation of the Holy
Spirit, and thus the Lord Himself is present in the Eucharist. To differentiate
with the Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation, Orthodox believes that
after the consecration, the bread and wine do change their nature by the power of
the mysterious transmutation, but their physical and chemical properties remain
unchanged. The miracle of the transmutation of the eucharistic elements is not
a physical but a metaphysical event. In other words, the miracle is not
expressed in the realm of physical world, but in the realm of metaphysical
world. As John of Damascus said: “If
you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it is through
the Holy Spirit... we know nothing more than this, that the word of God is
true, active, and omnipotent, but in its manner of operation unsearchable,”[27] thus
the transmutation is altogether a “mystery,” truly free from the nature “logic”
of fallen humanity.[28]
4. Center – Bishops
For the Orthodox Church, the bishops in different localities,
as the continuation of the apostles, play the critical role of the Eucharist
for the being and unity of the Church. It is because every bishop in Orthodoxy manifests
his unbroken apostolic succession back to Christ’s apostles. Zizioulas suggests
that the bishops express the continuity of the Church with Christ in two
aspects: its earthly existence, historical continuity; and its mystery of
sacramental and eschatological unity. In earthly existence, all ordained bishops
can trace back to the apostles, who received a mission from Christ to scatter
throughout the world to establish Churches within time and space. The bishops constitute
an uninterrupted historical link between Christ and the Church; in the
eschatological unity, the bishops are understood as a unique and indivisible
college gathered from the ends of the earth in a unique time and place, that
when the Church gathered in the Eucharist, she may manifest and anticipate the
Kingdom.[29]
Hence, the order of the eucharistic celebration reflects
the very nature and structure of the Church.
5. Eucharistic Liturgy
The
Orthodox eucharistic liturgy is a product of historical development throughout
centuries and slightly varies from different Orthodox churches. In general, it begins
with the solemn doxology. The next act of the liturgy is the entrance
into the Church by following the lead of the bishop, and coming of the
celebrant to the altar. This signifies that the Church is the entrance into the
heavenly sanctuary, and that in Christ we have ascended to heaven. The third
act is the reading of the Holy Scriptures by the bishop, telling out God’s desires
and intentions, and the salutations of peace, that Christ has established the
reconciliation between God and humans with the world. Following the antiphons
of peace, it is the proclamation of the Gospel and the offering to God of bread
and wine in remembrance of Christ. This prefigures our mystical thanksgiving in
the age to come. Then, the act of intercession, which is the preparation for
communion, comes. After the bread and wine are transmuted by the invocation of
the Spirit, celebrants “take, eat and drink” the heavenly food, which is Christ
Himself, as means of communion with Him, so that they may be like Him in the
very movement of His life. In sum, the Eucharist is a liturgical act which is the
movement of our ascension in Christ, sharing in the eternal blessing and
participating in the kingdom, the “world to come”.[30]
PART II: Local Church Movement
A. Nature
of the Church
1. Hidden mystery in God’s Eternal Economy
First of
all, LC’s basic understanding of the Church is the hidden mystery in God’s
eternal economy. According to Ephesians 3:9–11, the Church is “the economy (oikonomia)
of this mystery and is kept hidden in God for ages past.” The word oikonomia
literally means is a “house law,” “a household administration”, inferring a
plan of dispensation. Nee and Lee took up this language of oikonomia to
construct their ecclesiology. For Lee, the content of God’s hidden
plan of dispensation is “to dispense
Himself as life, life supply, and everything into His chosen people,”[31] and
thus the issue of God carrying out his plan of dispensing through Christ’s death
and resurrection is the Church.[32]
2. Two-fold Aspects
In God’s eternal plan, the Church
has two aspects: universal aspect and local aspect. In the universal aspect,
the Church is uniquely one, as shown in Matt 16:18: “I will build my Church”. In the local aspect, this one
universal Church expressed in many localities as many local churches, as shown
in Matt 18:17–20, that God called his people to gather in the name of Christ in
a particular locality. The relationship of the two aspects is that only being
in the local Church can the universal Church be realized and be practical.[33]
3. A Universal Body
In the view of Nee and Lee, the universal aspect of the Church
is the “Body of Christ,” which is understood as a spiritual
reality. There are three meanings of this Body. First, the essential nature of
the Church is not an organization, but a living organism made up of
believers who have organic union with Christ.[34]
Second, just as a human body is an expression of his/her fullness, so the Church
is the expression of the fullness of Christ the head.[35]
Third, the Church comes out of Christ and is part of Christ. Nee explicates
this idea with the picture of Eve presented in Gen. 2: as Eve is taken from
Adam in sleep, and thus be part of Adam, so did the Church come out of Christ through
His death, and thus be part of Christ (cf. Eph 5:25–30). In this sense, Nee
says that we may say “the Church is Christ”, “the corporate Christ” together with her head, the “individual
Christ.”[36]
Shown in
the picture of Eve, the Church will be Christ’s counterpart, being one with
Him. God today is preparing the Church to become Christ’s counterpart and bride
to match Him.[37]
As recorded in Eph. 5:25–32, there are blemishes and imperfections in the Church.
It is “by water with the words” that the Church is being sanctified and renewed
into the likeness of Christ, until at the second coming of Christ the
bridegroom, when the Church will be presented to Him as a “glorious Church, not
having spot, or wrinkle or any such thing” (5:27), and will become fully one
with Christ (5:31).[38] The
LC’s understanding of
deification of the Church is based on this union of God with human: “God’s
desire is to be one with [hu]man. This goal has been reached through Christ’s
death and resurrection, which produced the Church. The Church represents the
proper humanity to match God in Christ as the Husband. In this union, which
will last for eternity, redeemed, regenerated, and transformed humanity is one
with divinity.”[39]
Concerning this union with God, Lee makes a clear ontological-economic
distinction[40]
that “to say that the Church is the embodiment of the Triune God is not to make
the Church a part of deity or an object of worship.”[41] In
other words, LC insists that there is no loss of the divinity of God and the
humanity of human in the union between God and the Church.
On the
one hand, the Church is “already” Christ’s body; however,
the Church is “not yet” but “becoming” Christ’s body through
the process of sanctification until she is glorified. The Church will be the
Bride of Christ as the New Jerusalem in future eternity, becoming completely union
with Him, sharing His life, nature, and image, as fully gloried (Rev 21–22).[42] This
is the time when God’s purpose
for the Church becomes completely realized.
4. Many Local Lampstands
According to Revelation 1–3, LC understands the Church in
local aspect existed in different localities as golden lampstands, which are
furniture set up in the tabernacle in the Old Testament. Lee deems that one of
the crucial symbols of the local Churches in the Bible is the lampstands, as
Revelation 1:20 said “the seven lampstands are seven Churches.” The
Lampstand, first, is a symbol portraying Christ as the embodiment of the Triune
God (Cf. Exod 25). Gold, which is the substance with which the lampstand is
made, signifies the divine nature of God the Father. The tangible, visible form
of the lampstand signifies the Son as the embodiment of the Godhead in His
humanity. The shining of the lamps signifies the Spirit as the expression of
the Father in the Son. Then, in Revelation the lampstands signify the local churches.
Thus, the many local churches are the expression of Christ, the Triune God
shining His light and glory on earth.
5. Daily Spiritual Eating as the Way
Like Eastern Orthodox, LC uses the
illustration of eating and drinking
to describe the way in which the Church participates in the divine life and
nature in “becoming” the body of Christ and lampstand. As Christ says: “I am… the
life,” (John 14:6) and “he who eats me, he also shall live because of me,”
(6:57) from LC’s vantage
point, to eat Christ refers not to physical eating, but to spiritual eating.
Unlike Eastern Orthodox, this spiritual eating is not liturgical but primarily our
daily receiving of Christ into us as our life supply that we may be constituted
by Him and become like Him. Such a eating is God’s
original purpose both for our human enjoyment and His intention of deifying
human and being one with human. One of the songs in the LC songbook:[43]
“How may
we express such oneness, be divine and shining too?
Hallelujah,
eating Jesus is the way! He’s the tree of life, the manna,
and the feast that’s ever new—Hallelujah,
we may eat Him every day!”
The song explicitly
expresses LC’s idea that daily (spiritually) eating Jesus is the way that the
Church can partake in the divine nature, being one as Christ’s body and shining
as lampstands.
B. Sacraments of the Church
In
accordance with the Reformation tradition, LC recognizes only two sacraments instituted
by Christ and performed by the Church: Baptism, by which sinners are initiated
into the Church, and the Lord’s Supper,
in which the nature of the Church is particularly manifested by the baptized
members.
1. Lord’s Supper and Its Manifestation
In the view of LC, there are two aspects of the significance
of the Lord’s Supper and how it reflects
the nature of the Church:
The first
aspect is to show that the Church receives Christ as her bread of life,
participating in the divine nature. The symbolic, outward action of eating
bread in the Supper signifies our spiritual, inward eating of Jesus. As Jesus
said while He established His Supper: “This is My body which is being given for
you; do this in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19), and also in John 6:63:“it is
the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing,” the verses
show that “eating Him” refers not to physical but spiritual eating, and that the
remembrance of the Lord is to receive Him and enjoy Him into our spirits as our
spiritual foods anew.[44] It
is when we eat, drink, and “taste” the Lord that we truly remember Him. From
Lee’s viewpoint, the biblical
usage of “eating” is a fellowship and participation, and thus “to eat the body
of Christ is to have the fellowship of Christ. It is to participate in Christ
and to become one with Him.”[45]
Holding the analogy of “we are what we eat,” Lee suggests that “the more we eat
Jesus, the more we become Jesus.”[46] The
Church life is simply the fullness of the riches of Christ who have been eaten,
“digested”, and “assimilated” by His members.
The
second aspect is to show that the Church is the mystical body of Christ,
the expression of Christ on earth. The bread taken during the Lord’s Supper
does not refer only to the physical body of Jesus,
which was given on the cross for imparting his life for the world; but also
refers to His mystical Body, the Church
itself (1 Cor. 10:17), which is composed of all the saved ones who are blended
together. Eating the bread indicates the fact that though there are thousands
of bread-partakers, they are still one bread, one Body, having one fellowship in
the Church.[47]
Hence, the Lord’s Supper,
to LC especially, manifests both the nature of the Church’s oneness, the one
body of Christ, and the way the Church is united – by eating Christ.
2. Holy Word and Holy Spirit
For LC the Lord’s Supper is the climax of the Church
life that exhibits what the Church is, but the reality of the Church is from
Christ’s words and Christ’s Spirit, which are the spiritual foods for the
Church. Christ is the true food of human and what human truly needs. Based on
John 6, LC understands that Christ is embodied both in His Spirit and His words:
“it is the Spirit who gives life…the words which I have spoken to you are
spirit and are life” (6:63). It is Christ’s Spirit and His words which can
give believers His life and enable them to live because of him.[48]
Whenever a believer hears, reads Christ's words, he touches Christ's Spirit inspired
in His words, and thus eats Christ’s flesh as His life and life supply.
The whole Church life is a life of spiritual eating. It is by such regular daily
receiving of Christ’s words along with His Spirit, the Church
is constituted by the riches of Christ and filled with Christ,[49] and
thus expressing Christ’s fullness in her local gatherings,
particular in the gathering of the Lord’s Supper. Every Church meeting
enables members to be nourished, established, and perfected mutually for their
growth in spiritual life through exercising their charismatic gifts to speak
and hear of Christ’s words and encounter Christ Himself.
In this way, they are “built up” (Eph.
4:16) together to be the Christ’s body so that God’s purpose on the Church
may be manifested.[50]
3. Practice of the Lord's Supper Gathering
Different from most mainline
Protestant communion service practices, believers sit around a small table, which signifies the Lord’s Table, and on which a loaf of bread and a cup of wine
are placed. The meeting usually begins with singing
hymns concerning Christ’s person and his salvation works,
and then giving praises one by one freely without any assigned
arrangement. The signing and praising are conducted interweavingly, culminating
in a prayer given by a few “brothers” as representatives. Next, they break bread and pass the bread and wine to the rest of the
attendants. At the last part of the meeting, attendants would worship God the Father by singing and praising Him, bringing us
back to the Father. After singing and praising, usually
attendants would end the meeting with calling Him “Abba Father” altogether in order to give the Father glory.
PART III: Comparisons and Critiques
A. Similarities
and Differences
To begin with, both Orthodox and LC have a similar view
that the church is “sacramental” by nature: expressing or
referring to the mystery of God’s salvific work in Christ
according to His economy. They both put emphasis on the church as the body of
Christ, which is understood not as a metaphor but as a reality of divine-human
organism.
Secondly, both the ecclesiology of Orthodox and of LC are
soteriological-driven that focuses on not only the conversion but also the deification.
Orthodox relates the Church to creation as whole, the cosmos. When the Church
has attained the fullness of growth – union with God – determined by the will
of God, the external world will perish and human beings are fully restored to God’s image in them and their
original role as co-creators with God.[51]
Keeping the ontological–economic distinction, they
both believe that the Church will be deified and fully one with God. The
soteriology and ecclesiology are interrelated in both traditions that believers’ salvation
is chiefly understood and experienced in terms of the Church life, especially
centered or expressed in the Eucharist.
However, unlike the Eastern Orthodox, LC is more
Protestant-centered that does not understand deification to be the issue of
sacraments, liturgy, and other ritual. Rather, LC believes that we become like God
through the operation of grace partaken through our daily enjoyment of the Word
of God, through prayer, and through fellowship with the believers in the many
gatherings of the Church. We are made like God through our partaking in Christ
and our living like Christ by grace in our daily lives in the Church.[52] It
is in this light that LC reforms the Church practice, especially of the Lord’s Supper
gathering, in hope that the spiritual nourishment of the members and mutual
building up of the whole Church from spiritual eating may be maximized to reach
God’s goal of deification on
the Church.
B. Critiques and Suggestions
In
Orthodox point of view, the Eucharist occupies a special position. The Church
is essentially a eucharistic assembly that all aspects of Church life is fully
revealed in any eucharistic community. However, as Sopko commented, it seems
that the Orthodox Church reduces the entire life of the Church to the
eucharistic assembly and, having reduced and fragmented ecclesial life, prefers
one ecclesiastical activity to others.[53]
I am supportive of this comment that the Eucharist in Orthodox Church is placed
so high to an extent that it is the origin of the Church, determining every
aspect of the Church.[54]
Though I think that there may be a shaping power by the Eucharistic liturgies
according to James Smith,[55]
nevertheless, by setting all aspects of the Church originated from the
Eucharist, the life of the Church is also possibly narrowed down to liturgy
alone and in the danger of sacramentalism.
Orthodox Church
understands the Church in terms of the Eucharist with Bishops. Zizioulas
advocates an episcopocentric understanding of Church structure, that the local
Bishop primarily is the unique president of the Divine Liturgy and the
Eucharistic community. However, this seems contradictory to Paul’s
description that the significance of the Eucharist is the fellowship of the
Body (Cf. 1 Cor. 10–11). In addition, the episcopocentric structure
inadvertently underemphasizes the charismatic character of the Church through a
form of hierarchicalism. In practice, Bishops serves the eucharistic mediators
who bridge God or Christ with the laity. In fact, the laity is not only an
instrument of the extension of the Church in the secular life, but also a
living force for maintaining the Church in its movement of manifesting Jesus
Christ. From my perspective, the episcopocentric structure not only restrains
the diversity of the gifts of the Holy Spirit within the community, but also
fails to express the Eucharistic community as the body of Christ.
On the other hand, LC’s
ecclesiology is deeply rooted in the Reformation principle of priesthood of
all believers. Cheung critiques Nee of the view of eliminating the
Protestant ministerial system and the way of the communion service, and claims
that though the ministerial system is not found in the Bible, they are
necessary for the effective ministry of the Church.[56] In
my view, the reason behind LC’s practices lies more on the LC’s understanding of the
sacramental view of the Church. By eliminating the ministerial system, Nee and
Lee believe that it helps the preaching of Christ’s words and the working of
Christ’s Spirit in the Church and that every members in the church gatherings may
be nourished and perfected enough to practice the Reformation principle of the “priesthood
of all believers” and thus leads to the
spiritual growth of the Church to become Christ’s body and lampstand.
In the Postmodern era, both Orthodox and LC have to
consider the Church in a global context in which new situation and new demands are
arising. That Orthodox insistently holds its liturgical Eucharistic practices,
and that LC rigidly goes back to the NT and rebuilds the primitive Church practices
may face new challenges in different cultures. In my opinion, they need to
adjust their approaches and methods in carrying out their sacramental views of
the Church so as to expand the Church in the new context.
Conclusion
As exploring the question of what is
means to be the church from the roots of their own understanding and practice on
the sacraments of the church, Eucharist, I hope there can be a productive
dialogue between both sides: a high appreciation and a proper understanding of the
two sacramental views of the Church with different approaches would be given to
both the long-standing Orthodox Church, and to the more Protestant-centered, emerging
LC movement for the sake of ecumenism.
Bibliography
Primary:
1.
Afonsky, Gregory. Christ
and the Church In Orthodox Teaching and Tradition. St Vladimir’s Seminary
Press, 2001.
2.
Athanasius. “On the
Incarnation.” in
A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Grand Rapids, 1957.
3.
Bobrinkskoy, Boris. The Mystery of the Church: A
Course in Orthodox Dogmatic Theology.
Michael Breck Tran. New York: St Vladmir’s Seminar
Press, 2012.
4.
Bugakov, Sergius. The Holy Grail and The Eucharist. Herndon:
Lindisfarne Books, 1997.
5.
Eastern Orthodox Theology: A
Contemporary Reader. Clendenin, B. Daniel edited. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995.
6.
Cyprian of Carthage. On the Unity of the Catholic
Church in On the Church: Select Treatises.
St Vladimirs Seminary Press, 2006.
7.
Hierotheos.
The Mind of Orthodox Church. Esther Williams trans. Birth of the Theotokos
Monastery, 1998.
8.
Husbands, Mark and Treier, Daniel J. edited. The
Community of the Word. Downers Grove: InterVasity Press, 2005.
9.
Hymns. Anaheim: Living
Stream Ministry, 2002.
10.
John of Damascus. “Exposition of
the Orthodox Faith” in
Polnoie sobranie tvorenii, Book
3, 1. St Petersburg, 1913.
11.
_____________, On
the Orthodox Faith, 4.13, quoted by Kallistos Ware in The Orthodox Church: New Edition. New York: Penguin, 1993.
12.
Lee, Witness. The Conclusion of the New Testament
(CNT) (1). Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1991.
13.
_____________. The Conclusion of the New Testament
(CNT) (5). Anaheim: Living Stream
Ministry, 2014.
14.
_____________. A Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing. Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1990.
15.
_____________. Christ Making His Home in Our Heart and the Building Up of the Church. Anaheim: Living Stream
Ministry.
16.
_____________. How
God Becomes Man’s Enjoyment. Anaheim:
Living Stream Ministry.
17.
_____________. Life-Study
of 1 Corinthians: Messages 48-69 (3). Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry,
1990.
18.
_____________. The Divine Economy. Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1986.
19.
Living Stream Ministry. A Statement concerning
the Teachings of Living Stream Ministry Prepared for Fuller Theological Seminary, January 20, 2007.
20.
Louth, Andrew. Introducing
Eastern Orthodox Theology. Downers Grover: IVP, 2013.
21.
Maximus the Confessor. On Spiritual Knowledge and
Discrimination 69,
Philokalia 1:276, quoted in The
Philokalia: Exploring the Classic Text of Orthodox Spirituality.
Brock Bingaman, Bradley Nassif edited.
Oxford University Press, 2012.
22.
Meyendorff, John. Byzantine Theology: Historical
Trends and Doctrinal Themes. 2nd
edition. New York: Fordham University Press, 1999.
23.
Nee, Watchman. Collected Work
of Watchman Nee (CWWN), Vol. 34. Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1992.
24.
_____________. Collected Work
of Watchman Nee (CWWN), Vol. 44. Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1992.
25.
Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. Letter to the apostle
John, ep. 10, quoted in Pseudo- Dionysius: The Complete Works. NJ: Paulist Press, 1987.
26.
Schmenmann, Alexander. For the Life of the World:
Sacraments and Orthodoxy. 1973 revised.
New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2010.
27.
Palamas, Gregory. Sermon on the Holy Spirit 2, 78
in P. Christou. Gregory Palamas, Works, vol.1. Thessaloniki, 1962.
28.
Smith,
James K. Desiring the Kingdom: Worship,
Worldview, and Cultural Formation (Cultural
Liturgies). Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009.
29.
Ware, Kallistos. The Orthodox Church. 2nd
ed. New York: Penguin books, 1993.
30.
Zizioulas, John. Being
as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church. New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997.
31.
_____________. Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The Unity of The Church in the Divine Eucharist and the
Bishop During the First Three Centuries.
Elizabeth Theokritoff trans. Brookline:
Holy Cross Orthodox, 2001.
Secondary:
1.
Cheung,
James Mo-oi. The
Ecclesiology of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Washington: Christian Literature
Crusade, 1972.
2.
Cunningham, Mary B. and Elizabeth Theokritoff edited. The Cambridge
Companion to Orthodox Christian
Theology. Cambridge University Press, 2008.
3.
Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical
& Global Perspectives. Downers Grove: InterVasity Press,
2002.
4.
Sopko,
Andrew. Prophet of Roman Orthodoxy: The Theology of John Romanides. Dewdney, B. C.:
Synaxis Press, The Canadian Orthodox Publishing House, 1998.
[1] Boris Bobrinkskoy, The Mystery of the
Church: A Course in Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, Michael Breck Tran. (St
Vladmir’s
Seminar Press, 2012), 108.
[2]
Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Letter to the apostle John, ep. 10,
quoted in Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works (Paulist Press, 1987).
[3] Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church,
2nd ed. (Penguin books, 1993), 276.
[5] Witness Lee, The Conclusion of
the New Testament (CNT) (1) (Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1991), 9–10.
[7] Gregory
Afonsky, Christ and the Church In Orthodox Teaching and Tradition (St
Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001), 5.
[8] Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, An
Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical & Global Perspectives
(IVP, 2002), 18–19.
[9] Hierotheos, The Mind of Orthodox Church, Esther Williams
trans. (Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, 1998), 41.
[10] John of Damascus, "Exposition of the Orthodox
Faith," in Polnoie sobranie tvorenii, Book 3, 1 (St Petersburg,
1913).
[13] John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology:
Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, 2nd edition (Fordham University Press, 1999), 215.
[15] Cyprian of Carthage, On the Unity
of the Catholic Church, Section
5 in On the Church: Select Treatises
(St Vladimirs Seminary Press, 2006).
[18] Alexander Schmenmann, For the Life of the
World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy, 1973 revised (St Vladimir’s Seminary
Press, 2010), 11–14.
[20] Mary B. Cunningham and Elizabeth
Theokritoff edited, The Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology
(Cambridge University Press, 2008), 121.
[21] Vladimir Lossky, The mystical theology of the Eastern Church (St
Vladimirs Seminary, 1997), 181–182.
[22] Kallistos, 285.
[24]
Maximus the Confessor, On Spiritual Knowledge and
Discrimination 69, Philokalia 1:276, quoted in The Philokalia:
Exploring the Classic Text of Orthodox Spirituality, Brock Bingaman,
Bradley Nassif edited (Oxford University Press, 2012), 154.
[25]
Gregory Palamas, Sermon on the Holy Spirit 2, 78 in P. Christou, Gregory
Palamas, Works, vol.1, Thessaloniki, 1962, 149.
[26] John
Zizioulas, Being as Communion: Studies
in Personhood and the Church (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press,
1997), 145.
[27]
John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith,
4.13, quoted by Kallistos
Ware in The Orthodox Church: New Edition
(Penguin, 1993), 285.
[34] Ibid, 2156–2157. Watchman Nee, Collected
Work of Watchman Nee (CWWN), Vol. 44 (Living Stream Ministry, 1992), 822–823.
[44] See Lee, Witness. Christ Making His Home in Our Heart and the
Building Up of the Church. Chp 8. Living Stream Ministry.
[52] A Statement concerning the Teachings of Living Stream Ministry
Prepared for Fuller Theological Seminary, January 20, 2007, 25–26. (http://www.lctestimony.org/StatementOfTeachings.pdf.)
[53] Andrew Sopko, Prophet of Roman Orthodoxy: The Theology of John
Romanides (Synaxis Press, The Canadian Orthodox Publishing House, 1998),
151.
[54] John Zizioulas, Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The Unity of The Church
in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop During the First Three Centuries,
Elizabeth Theokritoff trans. (Holy Cross Orthodox, 2001), 17.
[55] Smith, James K. Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview,
and Cultural Formation (Cultural Liturgies). Baker Academic, 2009.
[56] James Mo-oi Cheung, The
Ecclesiology of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee (Christian Literature Crusade,
1972), 124–5.
