Orthodoxy, Irenaeus, and The Action of Recapitulation
Published on 24 Jun 2009 at 11:20 am.
2 Comments.
Filed under Anglican Thoughts.
Over at Daily Episcopalian, it appears that the theological differences unearthed by the previous months’ debate over Fr. Forrester’s election as Bishop of Northern Michigan are still rumbling. Most lately, Fr. Donald Schell, founder of St. Gregory of Nyssa in San Francisco, has articulated an affirmation of Fr. Forrester’s views that he believes is steeped in traditional orthodox understandings, particularly as articulated by Irenaeus. I know that Fr. Schell has a lot of good things to say and do, but this particular article is a misuse of what orthodoxy, particularly as defined by Irenaus , actually means.
Fundamental to Fr. Schell’s argument is that orthodoxy embraced an open and public approach to the church’s teaching over and against the close tradition of the Gnostics. Indeed, Orthodoxy has always embraced an open and public approach to the church’s teaching over and against the closed tradition of the Gnostics. Here I believe Schell is drawing on an argument made by Justo González in Volume I of The Story of Christianity, at the conclusion of his section on the Church’s response to Gnosticism and Marcion.
When first developed, late in the second century, the principle of apostolic succession was inclusive rather than exclusive: over against the closed and secret tradition of the Gnostic teachers, it offered an open and shared tradition that based its claim, not on a single favorite disciple of Jesus, but on the witness of all the apostles. Page 66
It is thus, perhaps, ironic that some would use the “open tradition of orthodoxy” as a precursor for jettisoning key Christian teaching—often without much rationale. The point of González and others is that orthodoxy does not choose “favorite doctrines” and then exclude ones you don’t like. Rather, orthodoxy and catholicity requires that we seek to hold together the truth and tradition of the broader church. It is not that Irenaeus and the other Church Fathers and Mothers didn’t draw lines. They just choose to draw those lines in such a way that they bore witness to the whole of catholic truth: Jesus is human AND divine, for all of our sake he was crucified AND we practice one baptism for the remission of sins, God is three and one, etc. Thus they drew lines and, though Irenaeus believed that all things had been summed up in Christ, he also had no problem saying that the Gnostics were outside of Christ’s body while they held their special secret tradition contrary to the broad orthodoxy of the Church.
The difficulty with Fr. Forrester and others is they are seeking to hold only one part of what the church has said is the catholic view. There is a desire to emphasize one view of one part of salvation (theosis) and downplay others (Jesus’ action on the cross, however defined). In holding only to one part of the tradition they are, ironically enough, too narrow. Rather, the truly inclusive and orthodox do not cherry pick doctrines that suit them, but seek to engage all of the Christian tradition, often finding truth revealed in carefully held tensions.
Furthermore, when one pushes on the understanding of patristic teaching by this crowd, other difficulties quickly arise. For example, take the development of theosis, as articulated in the article. Fr. Schell makes the connection between Irenaeus open and broad tradition and his articulation of “recapitulation.” Fr. Schell argues that “recapitulation” means that since Christ has summed up all things in himself, that the door is opened for universal salvation. However, context here is important.
Whereas Fr. Schell’s concern with recapitulation seems to be primarily horizontal (all humans in different religious traditions today), Irenaus’ concern was temporal. That is, Irenaeus was arguing against those who did not believe in the pre-existence of Christ, insisting that in the incarnation the pre-existent Son of God summed up the long line of humanity (Adv. haer. III. xviii and Adv. haer. V. xxi.). This is a philosophical question, insisting that Christ opened the door for the salvation of humanity by drawing the human into the divine. It is not a declaration that all of creation is now fully saved. Rather, our salvation has now been authored.
Furthermore, recapitulation assumes that outside of Christ there exists a level of brokenness. It is not, as Fr. Forrester and it appears Fr. Schell articulate, a recognition that Christ is present in all things. Rather, recapitulation is an action. All of creation came to be through the Word, but it fell, and in Christ as the Second Adam, God has acted to once again renew, restore, and reorganize all things in Christ. And this action was not a one-time moment, but it is rather the ongoing work of God: drawing all things to Godself. It is not accomplished by us telling ourselves to realize that we are all summed up, but by engaging in the difficult work of reconciling ourselves with one another. It also does not affirm the Godliness of all things, it just clarifies from whence they come no matter how broken. Athanasius himself makes this clear in On the Incarnation, “For His being in everything does not mean that He shares the nature of everything, only that He gives all things their being and sustains them in it.”
As recapitulation was developed by Athanasius and others, it became clear that this was about more than a declaration of status which only needs to be realized by the followers of God. Rather, this is a ongoing change in our being, the slow healing of our sin. “The theosis that follows on the incarnation of the Logos is therefore a healing because it heals the estrangement from God brought about by the enmity of sin” (Kenneth Paul Wesche, “Eastern Orthodox Spirituality: Union with God in Theosis,” ThTo (1999): 32). Or, as another theologian puts it, ““Salvation is first and foremost an ontological event in our human nature that inaugurates the possibility of unobstructed communion with God” (Vigen Guroian, “Salvation as Divine Therapy,” ThTo 61.3 (2004): 309-321). The possibility is now inaugurated, the on-going work of our salvation is God’s accomplishing of that healing through the redemptive work of the sacraments, something no less a liberal Protestant than Tillich believed necessary to the church (see, e.g., The Future of Religions, 86-87).
Once again, I repeat my concern that our church remain fearful of orthodoxy because of the way it has been man-handled by some on the right. Orthodoxy, the work of finding theology that flows from Scripture, is true to tradition, and consonant through reason with God’s actions in the world, is a difficult task. But that task is not aided by throwing our hands into the air and just insisting upon inclusivity and openness, pretending that their was no fall and that we are not still, as a creation, in need of a healing that is more than a change in perception. Fr. Forrester and other’s voices are incredibly important to that work, they push us to consider carefully what we believe, to hold fast to that which is good. That is a good and noble vocation. However, I still believe (along with others) that this specific vocation, as expressed by Fr. Forrester, is not the vocation of a bishop in the church.
Christopher on 26 Jun 2009 at 9:51 am: 1
A very fine response. I’ve offered a broadly Anselmian response at my blog. In both cases, we’re missing this “in Christness” that recognizes that though Christ has once-for-all overcome, His new humanity is being worked out in us in whom Sin has affected us to our very depths of being.
Andrew S on 20 Aug 2009 at 3:02 pm: 2
Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.