The Marks of the Church as ‘Gift’ and ‘Task’: A Paradigm for the Twenty-First-Century Church by Marguerite Frances Kappelhoff Cert IV AWT, Dip Soc Work, BTh, BTh (Hons) A thesis submitted to Charles Sturt University in fulfilment of the Doctor of Philosophy degree March 2015 ii Contents Certificate of Authorship ……………………………………………... v Acknowledgments ……………………………………………………. vi Professional Editorial Assistance …………………………………… vii Notes to the Thesis ………………………………………………….... viii Abstract ……………………………………………………………….. ix Chapter 1: Introduction to the Classical Marks and the Tensions …….. 1 1.1: The Challenge of Reading the ‘Marks’ in a Complex World …... 7 1.2: The Research Question: Can the classical marks of the church have a continuing and contemporary relevance for the church in the twenty-first century? ……………………. 17 1.3: The Significance of the Present Study …………………………. 19 1.4: Thesis Outline …………………………….…………………….. 21 Chapter 2: The ‘Marks of the Church’ through the Terrains of History 23 2.1: The Patristic Period: Early Conceptions ……………………….. 24 2.2: The Late Fourth Century: Welcoming the ‘Marks’…………….. 29 2.3: The Medieval Period: The Marks as Institution ……………….. 34 2.4: The Sixteenth Century: The Marks as a ‘Reformed’ Idea …….. 36 2.5: The Twentieth Century: The Marks as an Ecumenical Hope …. 42 2.6: The Twenty-First Century: The Marks as Division ……………. 45 2.7: Summary: The Marks and the Current and Future Church …….. 57 Chapter 3: The Marks of the Church and the Triune God: A Case Study in Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics …………. 59 3.1: The Marks in relation to Jesus and Mediated by the Holy Spirit 61 3.2: Barth’s Understanding of ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic’ 64 3.2.1: Oneness…………………………………………………… 64 3.2.2: Holiness ………………………………………………….. 68 3.2.3: Catholicity ……………………………………………….. 72 3.2.4: Apostolicity ……………………………………………… 75 3.3 The God Who Seeks and Creates Fellowship …………………. 82 3.3.1 God’s ‘Catholic’ Love …………………………………… 85 iii 3.3.2 God’s Seeking as ‘Apostolic’ …………………………….. 85 3.3.3 Seeking and Creating Is about Making the Other ‘Holy’… 86 3.3.4 ‘Unity’ in Fellowship …………………………………….. 87 3.4: The Correspondence of the Church’s Nature to that of Christ … 87 3.5: Critical Engagement with Barth’s Ecclesiology ………………... 93 Chapter 4: The Marks through the ‘Gift-Task’ Paradigm: Fundamental Elements …………………………………….. 110 4.1: The Value of Gift and Task ……………………………….…… 111 4.2: Communicative Insights from Wieman and Habermas ……….. 124 4.2.1: Wieman and His Doctrine of Creative Interchange ……… 126 4.2.2: Habermas and His Theory of Communicative Action ……. 134 4.2.3: The Benefits of a Conjoined Communicative Method …… 141 4.3: The Analytical Element ………………………………………… 144 Chapter 5: Re-interpreting the Marks: The ‘Gift-Task’ Paradigm ….. 158 5.1: Exploring the Need for Contemporary Ecumenical ‘Consensus’ 164 5.2: The Communicative Element: Based in ‘Mutual Understanding’ 175 5.3: The Analytical Element: Based in Self-Examination …………. 197 5.3.1: Held Together in Creative Tension ……………………… 198 5.3.2: Received as Dynamic Gift ……………………………….. 200 5.3.3: Practised as Embodied Task …………………………….. 207 5.4: The Theological Element: Based in the Triune God ………….. 211 5.5: Concluding Discussion ……………………………….……….. 213 Table 1: The Gift-Task Paradigm ……………………………….. 215 Chapter 6: Testing the ‘Gift-Task’ Paradigm …………………...….. 216 6.1: John Zizioulas: Orthodox ……………………………….…..… 218 6.2: Rowan Williams: Anglican ………………………………...…. 226 6.3: Jürgen Moltmann: Reformed ……………………………….…. 240 6.4: Amos Yong: Pentecostal ……………………………….…..…. 255 6.5: Concluding Discussion ……………………………….……..… 268 Chapter 7: Conclusions, Evaluations, Suggestions for Further Study 270 Reference List ………………………………………………………… 281 iv Certificate of Authorship I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by another person nor material that to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at Charles Sturt University or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contributions made to the research by colleagues with whom I have worked at Charles Sturt University or elsewhere during my candidature is fully acknowledged. I agree that the thesis be accessible for the purpose of study and research in accordance with the normal conditions established by the Executive Director, Division of Library Services or nominee, for the care, loan and reproduction of theses. Name: Marguerite Kappelhoff Date: 20 October 2015 Acknowledgments Writing a thesis is a solitary work, but it is a journey made in the company of others. Therefore I would like to acknowledge and thank the following: The Research Office of Charles Sturt University, for awarding me the Australian Postgraduate Award that supported my study, financially and otherwise. My principal supervisor, Dr Heather Thomson, who has journeyed with me since my BTh Honours through to this PhD. ‘Thank you’ seems hardly adequate. I will be forever grateful for your support in this process, your insight into my work, and your ability to redirect me to the task at hand. Thank you for being courageous and dedicated in your career as a theologian and author – you have paved the way for women like me. My co-supervisors, Rev Dr Brian Douglas and Prof Stephen Pickard, who offered incredible value to the overall thesis. Brian, introducing me to the works of Jürgen Habermas, created energy for the communicative aspects of my thesis. Stephen, thank you for helping me consider the possibility of Karl Barth. Your guidance has helped develop my thesis and ecclesiology more fully. My friends and mentors, who have endured with me through this process, listened to me endlessly through the various chapter developments, and encouraged me throughout the journey. My husband Gordon, and our children, Kirk and Megan – I dedicate this work to you. Regardless of where the road of life takes me next, if I have made you proud, then I have done enough. vi Professional Editorial Assistance I acknowledge the professional editorial assistance provided by Christopher Brennan, STB, AE (Accredited Editor, Institute of Professional Editors [IPEd]), according to Standards D and E of the Australian Standards for Editing Practice, by the Council of Australian Societies of Editors (2001), as revised by IPEd and approved by the Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies (Australia), 12 November 2010. vii Notes to the Thesis Some material in this thesis is based on previous research I engaged in for my unpublished BTh (Hons) dissertation in 2011 for CSU. This material is specifically found in chapter 1 on pages 1–10 (introductory section), and in chapter 2 on pages 36–40 (sixteenth-century section) and pages 44–55 (twenty-first-century section) of this current thesis. It should be noted however, that the material has been reworked, updated and added to in order to suit the scope and focus specific to this PhD thesis. Scripture All Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible: New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984) unless otherwise noted. Use of Politically Correct Language Throughout this thesis I have used politically correct language when I have written in my own words. However, when I have quoted various authors verbatim I have retained their texts as they were and have not corrected or identified their politically incorrect language. I have assumed that they were authors of their era and employed the writing styles of that time. Finally, when I have engaged with the various authors and used my own voice and not quoted them verbatim, I have rephrased their terminology in order to use politically correct language, as I believe that if they were writing today they would do the same. viii Abstract Across the globe the majority of Christians confess a shared belief in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. These four ‘marks’ have long served the church as identifying attributes through which church leaders and theologians could dispute heresies, accommodate diversity and articulate key convictions. However, to declare in the twenty-first century that the church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic is a perplexing statement that raises more questions than it answers. Further still, a closer look at the marks reveals that despite dogmatic declaration of the marks, engagement with and treatment of the marks can vary vastly amongst the ecclesial pool. For instance, while the marks are engaged with by creedal churches, they are presented on a divided front in which the marks are defined along preferred denominational and institutional lines. Regarding non-creedal churches, expression of or engagement with the marks is questionable, varying from institution to institution with no formalised or other outline. Therefore, this presents a problem, since the marks stand as a challenge and a summons to the whole body of Christ. It is not sufficient within current ecclesiology to simply push away these disparities by suggesting that fulfilment of the marks is a matter solely left for the eschaton. Rather, the contemporary church must find a fresh way to engage with the historical marks in order to determine ‘best’ ecclesial praxis, lest it proceed with arrogance and ignorance by neglecting its historical lineage. This suggests the need for at the very least: (1) clearer understanding of the marks; (2) a review of the theological function of the marks; and (3) some form