
Ecclesiology is one of those words that may be dropped into a conversation by a theological geek as a way of impressing or frightening an opponent. Like many words containing the ending ‘ology’, its use appears to indicate some level of specialised knowledge on the part of the user. In using the word here, I am asking my reader to understand the word at its simplest level. I take it to mean what Christians say and have said about the nature and meaning of the word church.
Many students of theology are surprised to discover that ‘church’, translating the Greek word ekklesia, is seldom used in a modern sense as a word describing an institution. More typically what we have in the New Testament are a variety of images like kingdom, communion or body to describe the new spiritual reality that the first disciples entered into as followers of their risen Lord. They knew themselves to have a new identity being ‘in Christ’ and that identity was shared with those who belonged to Christ as they did The words that they used to describe this new reality were typically words describing fellowship or close belonging. We have, as mentioned above, the famous body image in Paul’s understanding and the equally powerful word ‘koinonia’ or fellowship. Both these latter words, among other images are articulating an experience of what we might today describe as the ideal of Christian belonging. This, then as now, is at the heart of what many Christians identity as being the most important element of their religious experience.
The other dimension being described in our normal modern use of the word church picks up the more institutional aspects of the organisation that had come into being as the result of the Jesus event. While the beginnings of what we would call church order were beginning to appear in the pages of the New Testament, most of the institutional structures of the church would not appear for a hundred years or so. The fully formed identity of the Church, with buildings, formal authorised legal structures, the accumulation of wealth and the emergence of a legally defined hierarchy was by no means a given development in the early days of the Christian movement. The emperor Constantine may have made the Christian Church the official faith of the whole Roman world, but that privilege was gained through the Church allowing itself to become the tool of imperial political ambition. This debate about whether the Christian Church gained though its identification with Roman political institutions is not a debate I wish to enter on here. Suffice to say at this point is that what Christians understood to be the Church in 340 AD (or 1500) was a creature very different from anything that Jesus or Paul could have imagined.
Writing about historical events in such a generalised way is a dangerous activity, particularly if the reader senses that it is being done to make a church political point. I hope I am not doing this, but I am seeking to suggest that when any Christian speaks about the Church, he or she is mentally placing themselves somewhere along a continuum for understanding the word. Some Christians will feel far more at home with the subjective experience of church suggested by the word koinonia or fellowship; others in contrast will prefer to be identified with more structured institutional expressions of church that appeared later on in church history. It is of possible to identify with both forms of understanding but most Christians will choose to identify with a reasonably consistent place along our imagined continuum. That preferred place will want to give honour to the biblical subjective experience of church while honouring the more formal aspects of its life. At some risk of over-generalisation, I would suggest that traditional Catholics, with their strong grasp of tradition and order, are likely to be found at the institutional end of the spectrum while ‘biblical’ Christians will prefer the opposite end – the place of informality and freedom from over-defined structures.
What I have written so far is a somewhat lengthy introduction to an exploration of the idea that ecclesiology, or doctrines of the Church, have the potential to abuse the members. Both ends in our imagined continuum have particular risks in this regard. The risk, in the case of institutional manifestations of Church, is that those who occupy places of authority within the structures can come to believe that they exercise a divinely sanctioned power. To act in the name of God, whether though a special charism or as part of a legally ordained hierarchy is a heady claim. In recent times the legal and institutional side of the Church of England has become more visible because of countless safeguarding cases. Many of us have felt repelled by the way that the Church sometimes shows a face of self-protection mode with little expression of compassion. While we need a system of institutional justice in the Church, there have been too many cases where the institution in its extreme formal mode, comes over to the observer as a cruel monster seeking to overwhelm any who would challenge its power. As examples of this toxic power abuse administered by those paid to protect the institution, we may recall two notorious examples. First there was the extraordinary battle between Julie McFarlane, a sexual abuse survivor and a professor of law, against the lawyers representing the Church. It is hard to see how anyone other than a lawyer would have survived the aggressive questions on the part of the lawyers representing the Church. She did prevail and her abuser went to prison, but without any evident support from the Church institution. The other picture, indelibly engraved on our memories, is the sight of two archbishops at the IICSA proceedings refusing to apologise to Matt Ineson for the admitted failings of church protocols. One surmises that they were both acting in accordance with legal advice. When such advice takes precedence over gospel values, we may regard this as an example of a church operating abusively at the formal end of the continuum we have described.
The opposite end of the ecclesiological spectrum we have been describing is ‘church’ as a subjective experience of oneness. In contrast to the perception of church as being about order and formality, the emphasis is here about feeling and merging. Such subjective experiences can legitimately be read out of Paul’s descriptions of the new insights of Christians. We do, however, recognise that a balance is required so that preservation of the integrity of the individual is never lost. Too much emphasis on right feelings by all can result in a kind is dissolving of the personality. In a cult-like process the ability to make individual decisions becomes compromised and weakened. In its most serious manifestations, the individual personality is destroyed. Another serious danger for Christians who strongly identify with a subjective understanding of church is the problem of disagreement and dissent. An individual who wakes up in time to recognise that his/her core personality is under attack, and thus seeks to leave, can be treated extremely cruelly by other members of the group. I have written more than once about the abusive nature of ostracism in churches and cults. Often the cruelty of exclusion is practised on those who publicly seek help after suffering serious bullying or sexual abuse. Many Christians spend an unhealthy amount of time pushing away those whose beliefs and lifestyles are not approved of. The Christian experience of feeling unity and intimacy can be easily turned around to act cruelly to those who fail to conform or question the rose-tinted version of reality put out by those in charge.
Abusive ecclesiology is a startling and disturbing juxtaposition of words. This short piece may have alerted the reader to seeing that for some ‘church’ is a negative concept and it evokes the pain inflicted on them in the name of God who was believed to be all-compassionate and loving. Sadly, the human beings who take leadership roles in the Church seem to be the ones who fail all too often. While no one can solve the problem of church-induced suffering single-handedly, a blog of this kind can play a small part in demonstrating that someone somewhere understands this kind of behaviour. At the same time, it is possible to provide a few hints on the way that we all can challenge the power of those who oppress others with the tools of Scripture and Tradition.