The Church on Earth Must Be Visible

The image of the Church as a ship, as an ark, is not something that is surprising. Or it ought not be surprising, but it is incomprehensible to many people. Truly, the Church ought to be seen as a single, visible reality, a single ship as it were and not a fleet. After all, didn’t Jesus say “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18)? Jesus didn’t say that He would found many or several or even just two churches. No, He said “my church” not churches. So, if a ‘church’ arises that is not the Church, is it part of the Church or something else? For example, if a ‘church’ teaches that salvation is obtained by human effort alone and another ‘church’ insists that human effort or cooperation with God is unnecessary for salvation, can we say that those teachings, teachings that are contradict each other and the Gospel, can be seen as part of the teachings of the one Church Jesus speaks of? Can we say that baptism is unnecessary, that is optional, or that it is generally essential for salvation and still say that such teachings, which are utterly inconsistent, all reflect the Gospel that Jesus taught? They can’t all be true.

The Christian landscape of today contains such incompatible and divergent teachings, and it is not limited to baptism or other essential doctrines. Yes, there is general but not universal agreement that Jesus was true man born of a virgin yet true God existing from all eternity, that He did many miracles, that He suffered and died for us, that He rose from the dead, and that He ascended into heaven, but is that the sole common ground that Jesus established? Did Jesus intend that all of His followers would believe a single integral Gospel or is Christian discipleship a veritable free-for-all when it comes to core beliefs? Did Jesus intend that a handful of well-meaning individuals could declare themselves as the true followers of Jesus based on their own opinions or based on their own interpretation of what the Church is or is not, or that some kind of circumstances make departing from the Church not only legitimate but necessary? Did Jesus intend that His followers would see discipleship as ‘me and my Bible’ as opposed to being an observant, dedicated, obedient, and faithful member of a recognizable Church that teaches an integral, universal, and apostolic faith?

One of the critical areas where a visible and authoritative Church becomes necessary is morality. Yes, there are disputes about teachings like purgatory and original sin, but one would think – one would hope – that there would be consensus on moral issues. Is divorce and remarriage moral? Does human life begin at conception, at birth, or afterwards? Is abortion murder or a matter of so-called women’s healthcare? Can mankind tinker with nature to engineer pathogens or to make designer offspring? Can immigration be seen as so fundamental of a human right that a blind-eye is turned to the trafficking of women and especially children? Does love of neighbor necessitate the acceptance and approval of their behavior? Given that the Bible does not clearly teach on various moral issues that have arisen in the last two millennia, how are moral issues like surrogate motherhood or various medical technologies deemed moral or immoral? Left ourselves, are we likely to get the answers right all of the time, most of the time, some of the time, or even occasionally? To say that Jesus left us to work these issues out by ourselves, that one cleric’s answer is as good as an answer from one or more ‘churches’ is to basically say that morality does not matter. Absurd!

It ought to be obvious that the moral voice of the Church needs to be logical, consistent, up-to-date but timeless, intelligible, unified, and clearly proclaimed to the ends of the earth. The Church not only should be heard throughout the world, it also needs to be seen. Jesus foresees this: “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector” (Mt 18:15-17). How does one approach and consult an invisible ‘church’ or a plethora of ‘churches’ all teaching a spectrum of moral opinions?

—Fr Booth