Take Home Exam: Ecclesiology

By Dimmtri Christou

1. Very often in todays society, you hear well-intentioned people saying that
they are Christians but do not see the need to attend Church. How would you
respond to such claims explaining not only the significance of the Church but
the absolute necessity of being present within such a gathering?

In contemporary culture there exists the individualistic view where the church is seen as
an obstacle rather than an aide for the spiritual life of a Christian. This view encompasses
the notion that the church is a redundant institution (my relationship is with God. Why
do I need a church?). Simply the Christian ignorantly, albeit sincerely, believes the
church is a limitation to their spiritual life. Essentially this view is founded upon a
confusion of what constitutes the church and its peculiar purpose and function in spiritual
life of the Christian and so will be responded to in the following paragraph.
In response one could argue by stating that the church is not a limitation to the
Christians spiritual life and so should not be understood as an obstacle for the church
just is the locus of communion with God. Indeed to live in communion with one another
and God constitutes the Christian life1 and it is through participating in the Eucharist2 that
1

Florovsky. The Church: Her Nature and Task. Chapter IV of Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, Vol. I:

Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View. (Bchervertriebsanstalt, Vaduz, Europa, 1987), p. 32.

ones relationship with God is actualized beyond its intellectual limitations. Consequently
it is in the communion of the church that one experiences true freedom3 for in the Church
ones will is aligned with Gods and so transcends its ontological limitations. Thus, in
response, one could respond by arguing that the church is the bedrock of freedom by
virtue of its nature for through participating in the Eucharist one is capable of
transcending the mundane through unification with God. The Church exists for the sake
of the salvation for humankind and therefore cannot be seen as an impetus on the
Christian spiritual life.4

2. Many Christians today understand all authoritative structures within the

Church especially that of the episcopate - in terms of domination and
therefore both compromising the freedom of the faithful and creating
unnecessary divisions (between those who rule and those who are ruled)
within the life of the Church. How would you respond to such claims pointing
out the meaning of authority in the Church and the indispensable role of the
episcopate in the life of the Church?

In contemporary culture many Christians and non-Christians alike view the authoritative
structures of the church in a purely negative respect. In particular the episcopate is seen
as a domineering, damaging and unruly aspect of the church. The authoritative structures
of the church are seen as totalitarian in nature and application. Certainly Christian clergy
2

John Zizioulas. The One and the Many: Studies on God, Man, the Church, and the World Today. (Sebastian

Press, 2010), p. 51.

3

Kevin J. Bidwell. The Church as the Image of the Trinity: A Critical Evaluation of Miroslav Volfs Ecclesial

Model. (Wipf & Stock Pub, 2011), p. 126.

4

Archbishop Stylianos Harkianakis. The Infallibility of the Church in Orthodox Theology. (ATF Press, 2008)

are to a degree to blame for this view of ecclesial authority. Surely not every bishop has
lived a saintly life. With that being said the authoritative structures of the church exist for
reasons distinct from contemporary cultures misunderstanding. In the following
paragraphs this confusion will be addressed.
In response one could argue by stating that the authoritative structures of the
church arent considered by the church to be authoritative in a totalitarian sense. Indeed
the authoritative structures of the church are understood to exist for the sake of the other
as authority is understood to occupy a relational reality5 in the church rather than an
ontological one. Simply authority in the church is understood in light of the existential
reality it occupies. Particularly God the Father does not enjoy preeminence to the Son by
nature but rather enjoys preeminence to the Son relationally according to the mode of
reality he occupies. Consequently, authority being exemplified in the Godhead therefore
implies its material actualization in the church for the church just is an embodiment of the
life of the Holy Trinity.6
Thus, authority in the church according to its various structures is by no means
authoritative in a totalitarian sense. Instead authority in the church should be understood
in the relational sense. For the authority of the Church provides the means for personal
and free existence in communion.7 Nevertheless it is necessary that the Christian who

Philip Kariatlis. Origin and Limits of Authority in the Church and its Relationship to Authenticity. (Phronema

Volume 18, 2003), p. 65.

6

Ibid., 65.

Ibid., 64.

believes in the authority of the church and its various structures demonstrate the
distinction between a worldly authority and an ecclesial one wherein the latter view of
authority focuses on the celestial end of the human person rather than the terrestrial
reality the individual occupies.

Bibliography
Florovsky. The Church: Her Nature and Task. Chapter IV of Collected Works of
Georges Florovsky, Vol. I: Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View.
(Bchervertriebsanstalt, Vaduz, Europa, 1987)
John Zizioulas. The One and the Many: Studies on God, Man, the Church, and
the World Today. (Sebastian Press, 2010)
Kevin J. Bidwell. The Church as the Image of the Trinity: A Critical Evaluation
of Miroslav Volfs Ecclesial Model. (Wipf & Stock Pub, 2011)
Archbishop Stylianos Harkianakis. The Infallibility of the Church in Orthodox
Theology. (ATF Press, 2008)
Philip Kariatlis. Origin and Limits of Authority in the Church and its Relationship
to Authenticity. (Phronema Volume 18, 2003)