Of course church is connections and relationships.
But those cannot exist outside of committed intentional gathering – not in any truly functional way. It will wither away. A gathering – for worship and sacrament affirms that “my” connected web of relationships is part of something far bigger, that “we” are accountable to something far bigger, and that “our” mission is but one component of a larger mission.
To the question – I don’t think that the ecclesiology gave rise to the tradition, although it did control some of the precision of wording in the creeds and such. The ecclesiology cemented what was already the tradition – and it wandered deeply into the sin of power and honor and glory to man; the sins of greed and self.
We need to connect to the great tradition and to the church – but we need to call the Church out where the Church embraces evil.

At the risk of sounding simplistic, seems to me the necessary ecclesiastical elements are in Acts 2:42 (teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, prayer). Different cultures will work this out differently and we do well to be informed by our forebears but not necessarily beholden to them.

As RJS notes, intention is what matters. Structure does not guarantee intention ex opere operato. In fact structure should be shaped by context as much as it is by intention – does Belcher have much to say on contextualization?
So yes, It is possible to embrace the Great Tradition without embracing the ecclesiology of that tradition. Sometimes to embrace the intent of the Great Tradition even necessitates modifying or abandoning its structures because our context is no longer theirs. This is as true of missionaries – contextualizers of the gospel – to postmodern subcultures as it is of missionaries to unreached people groups in Nigeria.

I’ve not read Ward’s book, so I can’t comment on that directly, but I think we should make a distinction between the house church movement/organic church and the kind of “I hang out with Christian friends and sometimes we talk about God and stuff” postchurch thing. Frank Viola, for instance, is clearly an advocate of a more organic, less institutional church, but he recently ripped into the “sometimes we go to Starbucks” perspective: http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2009/08/frank_viola_on.html
Worshiping through space and architecture is good, but I think very few would actually argue that the building matters.
This is an area where third way voices are really drowned out. If you suggest you don’t believe in ordination, for instance, you are frequently met with “Oh, you don’t believe in leadership, huh? Don’t believe in teaching? Let’s all just run around a field and throw daisies at each other!” Very few are suggesting anything like that.
To answer the last question, no, you don’t need to embrace (read: adopt) the ecclesiology of the RCC or EO churches to embrace them. Deep ecclesiology, as defined by Andrew Jones, is honoring the church in all its forms, from the oldest and most hierarchical to the house church that started yesterday. http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2005/05/deep_ecclesiolo_2.html

This is a great question and an important one. I’m not so sure that the ecclesiology that gave birth to the Great Tradition can be elided without doing irreparable damage to the Tradition. It would have been inconceivable — heretical — to the participants at Nicea (much less to the convener, Constantine) that the Creed could be separated from the Church.
For this reason, I’m not totally persuaded that the “Great Tradition” idea is really helpful in distinguishing a “third way” between emerging and traditional. _None_ of us who are protestants are truly “Traditional”; we _all_ borrow from the Tradition as we see fit.
Nevertheless, I agree that the _themes_ of the ecumenical councils vitally mark out a center for basic Christian belief, which is also the central theme of scripture: the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (and by implication the Trinitarian nature of God).
But — if I’m going to agree that the ecumenical councils have some sort of particular authority through the Holy Spirit, then I can’t see much reason to resist converting to Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy. And we should realize that in adopting the Great Tradition without converting, we’re making a statement with massively important implications for our own souls, for both the Catholic and Orthodox churches claim apostolic succession and the true authority to dispense grace. In short, the move all confessional protestants make with respect to the Great Tradition is no less radical than any move the emerging church (and the liberal mainline church) has made with respect to the portions of the Great Tradition adopted by confessional protestants. Or at least, I haven’t heard any compelling arguments to the contrary.

dopderbeck,
But doesn’t the fact that you have the choice of RCC or Orthodox churches downplay their authority claims just a bit? There’s not even one “apostolic succession”, which of course Protestant churches claim as well.
If you see the Tradition as including historic Protestantism (the reformers, the Wesleys) as well as recent developments like the charismatic movement and the emerging conversation, you are beginning to practice a deep ecclesiology. I’m all for including the great Catholic and Orthodox traditions within the Tradition, but why limit it just to that?

dopderbeck,
Here is my take on the question – should we convert to RC or EO?
The massive evil that has been done by the power structure of the church over the centuries – make that millenia – makes it absolutely clear that God’s favor does not rest solely with this (or likely any) church structure. I have absolutely no doubts about this.
Now I realize that great good and great love for God and mission has also come out of this structure – but that doesn’t validate the structure, it is simply a result of the fact that God is not limited by the failings of our man-made constructs.

Travis (#6) — I’m not sure why that would necessarily be so. One or both of them could be wrong about the things that separate them without being wrong about everything. They have been engaged in ongoing ecumenical dialogue. I wouldn’t be too surprised if in the next century or so they come into communion with each other and the rift is healed. The major difference, after all, is a really obscure point about whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only or from both the Father and the Son.
RJS (#7) — but you could say the same thing about _every_ Christian church and denomination, and about the Bible itself. In fact, this is one of Dawkins’ central arguments against Christianity: the Bible can easily be used to justify slavery and other evils. Even those groups that broke away from Rome after the Reformation quickly degenerated into bloody internecine conflicts. None of us who are of Baptist persuasion concerning Church governance and baptism would have wanted to live in Calvin’s Geneva or in Winthrop’s Massachusetts, for example. Does this mean the Bible isn’t inspired by God?
What I’m looking for here is a principle of authority. Why does the content, but not the context, of the ecumenical creeds supposedly carry some kind of authority as “Great Tradition?” So far the main reason seems to be that (a) the churches that claim apostolic success are divided and inconsistent; and (b) the churches that claim apostolic success have often abused their purported authority. Neither of these reasons seem terribly persuasive to me.
I think the more principled answer has to be that the Reformation also is an essential part of the “history of the Holy Spirit.” The “Great Tradition,” then, isn’t just the ecumenical creeds — it’s at least the ecumenical creeds _plus_ the great “solas” of the Reformation. But now, it seems to me, we’re getting far beyond the “generous orthodoxy” that the “Great Tradition” idea is supposed to foster, because we have to hold that the Catholic and Orthodox traditions are fundamentally and irretrievably wrong. Or so it seems to me.

dopderbeck @ 8,
I don’t think respecting the content and the context of the creeds requires that we roll back a thousand years of history. Yes, the creeds were formed when the church was organizationally unified. It’s not now. That’s history.
Yes, the Catholics and the Orthodox have been a-courtin’ for decades. There is all sorts of inter-denominational dialogue that is happening all the time, and all of that is great. But not essential.
A third way emerging ecclesiology, imho, would acknowledge that the Reformation is an essential part of the history of the Holy Spirit — but so are the effects it had on Roman Catholicism. Most of what divided the Catholic church and Luther/Calvin et al is kind of over now. “Protestant” is actually probably an inaccurate label now. I realize the RCC would still say that we non-Catholics are outside the church, but frankly that’s their problem. For my part, I see them as part of the church with me and all my post-Protestant, Anabaptist, evangelical, E Orthodox, Methodist, Presbyterian, charismatic, Calvinist, and Quaker friends.

Dopderbeck-
“”The major difference, after all, is a really obscure point about whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only or from both the Father and the Son.”
They also have the big issue regarding the authority of the Pope. The EO “first among equals” approach is a far cry from the RCC understanding.

dopderbeck,
Thanks … as always… for your learned comments on this blog.
1 Cor 15:1ff became the structural limbs for the ecumenical creeds, and it could be argued — as Pelikan and others have — that the creeds explicated what was in the NT and what was implicit in the NT and what was implicit in primitive gospel statements like 1 Cor 15:1ff.
The Great Tradition for me is the ecumenical creeds, to be sure, in their core but not necessarily in every detail (that gets into infallibility issues). The solas, for me, are Great Tradition as well since they explicate what is in the NT, what is implicit in the NT or what is implicit in the gospel itself. I would contend, as well, that the RCC and the EO at times have fallen off those gospel structures. So have the Protestants, especially in raising to the level of gospel what is not the gospel.
The authoritative source for gospel articulation is the NT, of course, but the regula fidei — those early understandings of the gospel — was at work to justify which books belonged.
All this to say: The Great Tradition is that which articulates accurately what the gospel is.

Travis, I had to chuckle at this:
“… but frankly, that’s their problem.”
No small “their” in that one.

There has been some pushback on affirming the ecclesiology of the Great Tradition in order to embrace that Great Tradition… so let me ask this another way:
What kind of ecclesiology is needed in order to embrace the Great Tradition, and I have stated that the Reformation solas are in that Great Tradition?

Scot -
I like to think in terms of “liturgical formation” rather than “tradition.” So many people have trouble escaping the images of ecclesial hierarchy that so often accompanies tradition, that the word can create impenetrable barriers. So, with regards to Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic, I prefer the term “liturgical formation”. (A phrase I learned from Stanley Hauerwas). I think it is helpful to think this way because it says that God’s people across history know something about how to be formed into the likeness of Christ. The Northumbria Community accepted this concept without pursuing the ecclesial hierarchy that overshadows the blessings of orthodox liturgy. This is just one example. Some Quaker, Anabaptist, and Mennonites have found value in such Orthodox Liturgy. As has this low church Stone-Campbell guy!

Certainly your ecclessiology gives rise to the tradition. Church as:
(1) a divine society, administering the means of grace (2) a human society, having religious services and fostering fellowship (3) a paradox society, an outward display of the inward propensity of the members.
On the individual level, paradox is one of the hidden transformations in the journey of faith. On the group level this is a sign of faith cultures in an emerging society.

Scot (#11) — one last bit of pushback — while I don’t disagree that “the Great Tradition is that which articulates accurately what the gospel is,” this begs the question of what the gospel is. If “gospel” is entirely prior to “Great Tradition,” then “Great Tradition” adds nothing. But the churches that claim apostolic succession within the Great Tradition define “gospel” to include the irreducible role of the institutional Church in mediating grace. The Church that assembled at Nicea would never have countenanced that anyone can be saved outside the institutional Church. No Church, no Gospel, for them.
So, my answer I think is that if “Great Tradition = Biblical Kerygma,” then I’d say that it doesn’t imply any particular form of ecclesiology, other than some practice of baptism and communion; but if “Great Tradition = Biblical Kerygma + Historic Development of Canon and Creed,” then it seems to me difficult, given all the historical context, to argue against at least the _ideal_ of a single apostolic institutional Church. So I wonder: should the “third way” operate with the assumption of Christian pluralism, or should it feature ecumenical institutional unity as a key goal?

Joe James Oct 6,10:51AM. You want tradition to mean liturgical formation. I want it to mean the way the people who come from that group act in the world. That is why I say the way you think of church
affects tradition.

dopderbeck,
Here is my key conviction – you say you are looking for a principle of authority. I am saying that history teaches us that we will never find authority with perfection in a church — Because all of your examples, and Dawkins’s are correct. We will find that authority only on our knees before God. We cannot dodge that responsibility.
I certainly don’t think that God will absolve us of responsibility for following him because the pope or the pastor, John Calvin, or the Westminster Standards, told you something different. Does this mean salvation hinges on being right – no not at all. But it does mean that we listen to the church and the community, but we are also responsible for keeping the church on the right path.

#17 “Your Name”
“That is why I say the way you think of church affects tradition”
I agree with this! Well said.
I don’t want tradition to mean liturgical formation, though. Rather, when we speak of “The Great Tradition” I would rather say liturgical formation, precisely because the opposite of your statement is also true – namely, the way we think about tradition affects the church. And church ought to be about formation for the sake of the world – not tradition for the sake of the world (please understand that I mean “tradition” here as it is commonly understood by the masses).

I am having problems with the meaning of “Great Tradition”? Is Scot’s definition (#11) the standard one? I thought it was the liturgy and the creeds dating from the 4th century. I can’t answer the question without defining the terms.

Hey Everyone,
Just got my kids off to school out here on the West Coast and have been reading the comments and some of the links. This is a hard subject, is it not? This was a hard chapter to write. But an enjoyable one. It is so vital a topic for unity.
Scot’s first question, which was “do we need to affirm the ecclesiology of the Great Tradition in order to embrace that Great Tradition?”, got lots of push back.
I really like his second one: “What kind of ecclesiology is needed in order to embrace the Great Tradition, and I have stated that the Reformation solas are in that Great Tradition?”
What I tried to do in Deep Church was find a way that both sides–who look to the Bible for ecclesiological insight and yet come up with often widely differing conclusion–could turn to church history, the Great Tradition, and glean wisdom from the inherited structures of the church, without getting into the Protestant/Catholic debates over authority and hierarchy. I am not saying this is not an important topic but just not one I wanted to handle in this discussion that was mostly for evangelicals. Can evangelicals glean wisdom from the Great Tradition? And if we give this Tradition some authority (because it affirms the Gospel)what structure and practice do we need to adopt to be in line with this wisdom? I think this is what Scot is getting at in his question.
In Deep Church, I try my hand at this question and lay out 5 points:
1. Balance between the organic and institutional nature of the church. Speaking of the institutional side, I write, “For the deep church, membership is important for all ages. We take
our membership promises seriously. Part of being a member of Redeemer
Presbyterian Church is submitting?for the love of others?to certain
laws, structures and leaders. All healthy communities, even families,
have laws, structure and leaders. We have not been afraid to embrace the church as institution. Our life together requires love, and love demands certain laws, whether informal or formal, to be adopted to bless the community. Although most of these laws are not vital to our salvation, they are necessary to maintain the love and unity of the community.Thus they are adopted voluntarily by all members for the benefit of the community. Our four core commitments, our church government and other informal rules of behavior help us to serve the cause of love. We don?t shy away from talking about them because we realize they are necessary for the health of the community.”
2. God calls leaders (Acts 14:23).
3. Worship as a means of Grace. Weekly worship is part of our discipleship and how we grow as Christians. We can look to the Great Tradition for great resources for worship.
4. Need to cultivate Tradition, that is, pass it down to our children so they learn we are in fellowship with the dead saints that came before us. The Christian community is more than us individually or even our specific church body. It goes back thousands of years and we are part of it.
5. Tradition is profoundly relevant: As I say in Deep Church, “we learn from tradition that to be ancient is to be profoundly relevant. There is a depth in the ancient church that is very up to date. The deeper we sink our roots in tradition?the entire Great Tradition, including the parts that challenge our idols?the more resources we have for life today.”
Sorry for the long post but I thought it would helpful for those who have not read Deep Church yet.
What other parts of church structure(both freedom and form) do we need to adopt in order to heed the wisdom of the Great Tradition (which includes the Sola’s)?
I am off to a staff meeting (with other leaders!) and thus will check back in a couple of hours.
Shalom,
Jim

What kind of ecclesiology is needed in order to embrace the Great Tradition? It is largely a sacramental Church. That is Church as the fundamental sacrament.
Not as EO or RC, where the means of grace can hardly be seen as in earthly vessels, especially the people. But must be somehow transmuted or transsubstantiated. Not as in many pentacostal or charismatic, where there is the word and then there is the living word. You know, where the people are more or less in tune with being filled with the Spirit.
A sacramental Church asserts the reality of supernatual grace through the natural. Through a vehicle which remains in itself what it is. The genious of orthodox christology, ecclesiology, and eucharistic theology is sacramental.

Anyone could tell I’m no genius.

I am just not seeing much on how missiology is driving the ecclesiology.
Rather than “Bible + Tradition + Mission = Deep Ecclesiology”, I see it as Bible + Mission= Tradition, from which comes forms of ecclesiology.
Our missiology should inform our ecclesiology.

“who fears him and does what is right”
A fair bit of theological ambiguity here.
What does “fearing” God entail? What is doing right? Is this good works, good understanding of the cross, good participation with the Spirit?
Peter was a bit more radical than a lot of the church these days would be comfortable with, I think. Well, more radical than a lot of the church then was comfortable with as well. But, he wasn’t about to deny Christ a fourth time. So he had to testify to the Spirit’s work, where the Spirit worked.

Roger Williams wrote, in 1644, “whether in the constitution of a national church, it can possibly be framed without a racking and tormenting of souls, as well as of bodies of persons, for it seems not possible to fit it to every conscience: sooner shall one suit of apparel fit every body, one law precedent every case, or one size every foot.”
And that’s the trouble with a standard ecclesiology. Different people have different ways of being. The goal is not to fit into a pattern, but to grow in Christ. Jim’s point #3 right above brings this out to me. The goal of gathering as a church is edification (1 Cor. 14), so the model should be what brings a person in a closer relationship to Christ. Honestly, the truth is that most church services tend to undermine my Christian devotion rather than aid it. Passive reception discourages me, and simply hearing an oft mediocre message framed by mediocre music never exactly lifts me to heaven. And the fact is it doesn’t most people, which is why people can go to church for decades and not grow in a spiritual maturity that shapes how they live their life through the week.
“The major difference, after all, is a really obscure point about whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only or from both the Father and the Son”
What I say above is why this isn’t a really obscure point at all. If the Spirit proceeds from Christ, then in our church order, the representatives of Christ-whether minister or Eucharist–become a primary source of ecclesial authority and approval. We go to Christ to participate in the Spirit which proceeds from Christ. We shape our churches in ways that promotes a going to a worship service, a receiving from an approved, apostolic authorized, moment. The Spirit proceeds from Christ, through Peter, through the bishops, into the church, then to the people. We organize our whole ecclesiology based on the reception of this ministry, which then gives certain individuals the seeming right to judge who is in and who is out. The Spirit that proceeds from Christ is bound to the Body of Christ, the Church.
The Spirit who proceeds from the Father not from Christ but with Christ is free to work in manifold ways, outside the formal structures, in and around and through all kinds of people, in all kinds of patterns. Instead of the church being the place where the Spirit is received, the church can be the place where the Spirit who is already working in men and women comes together in celebration of Christ. The Spirit comes with the people, rather than the people coming to the Spirit, we might say.
The Great Tradition is the work of the Spirit, as we see in the Acts texts currently considered in other posts. As the Spirit works, we adapt. As the Spirit brings people in, we welcome. As the Spirit gives gifts, we give room for those to be shared.
Apart from the Spirit there is no church, even if people gather in Christ’s name. How the Spirit gathers people can be in all kinds of ways, for all kinds of purposes, all with the clear evidence of real edification and growth.

Jim and Scot: if the Great Tradition = the gospel, and the gospel is fully articulated in the proto-creedal statements in scripture, what specifically is added by any creeds, councils, etc. that you’d want to include in the Great Tradition? What specifically are the errors or pitfalls to which the emerging church is prone that reference to a Great Tradition beyond the scriptural statements of the gospel would correct?
Jim, it seems to me that your central concern about the emerging church is over authority. Emergents are like a herd of cats, lacking a center of authority, even in some of their own churches where there is no preacher, etc. The Great Tradition of the Patristic Church shows that this kind of individualism doesn’t really measure up. Is that a fair summary?
I think that’s a fair point, but it raises the Patristic Tradition’s ecclesiology, at which point I feel like the conversation gets circular. The emergent / anabaptist / Plymouth Brethren in me wants to say “who sez?,” the Roman Catholic / Orthodox admirer in me wants to convert, and I don’t feel satisfied with any melange.

David #27,
My fear with the emerging church (as well as the traditional side of evangelicalism) is that the emotivism of the day can unduly influence the church and Gospel message. Syncretism is always a danger. The emerging church is so committed to mission (a good thing)that without the proper counter weight like the Great Tradition, my fear is that the world will eventually push them into its mold. I don’t want them to lose their passion for evangelism and impacting culture, to reaching the post Christian world. Just to make sure they are rooted into the Great Tradition so they know when they are losing their saltiness. This goes for all of us.
Jim

David #27
I feel the same way with only a slight modification. “The emergent / Presbyterian in me wants to say “who sez?,” the Roman Catholic / Orthodox admirer in me wants to convert, and I don’t feel satisfied with any melange.”
I’m even planning on attending an EO church this weekend for the 1st time. I struggle mightily with the question of authority and don’t buy RJS’s “The massive evil that has been done by the power structure of the church over the centuries – make that millenia – makes it absolutely clear that God’s favor does not rest solely with this (or likely any) church structure”. God’s Favor rested on Israel in spite of their massive sin and failures. Is God’s favor what’s made 25,000 protestant denominations? If God’s favor is the measuring stick, then non have faired well! Not to mention, How do we know?
As much as I’d like to believe this, I don’t see how we can divorce the “Great Traditions” from the very Tradition which established them. BTW, I think I went to Gordon with your brother…Ted?

Andy,
God’s favor rested on Israel – but their authority was God alone. The temple structure was at times corrupted – and God’s favor did not always reside with the priests or the kings or the judges. This was a messy situation – and one in which at any given time I would suggest that “authority” was difficult to pinpoint.
My point is that God did not appoint and protect and delegate his authority to a “Church.” The church is a human attempt to wrestle with what it means to follow God. The patristic ecclesiology was contaminated by ways in which it “conformed to the world.” Every subsequent attempt has also been contaminated. This is always a danger.

RJS,
I agree that every attempt has been contaminated, so where does that leave us? EO and RCC would certainly say that all authority is in God alone as well, but it’s how we understand God that comes into questions. The God of Calvin looks very different then the God of the RCC/ Eastern Orthodox. Is this simply a cultural/historical difference or is there something more here? 1 Tm. 3:15 makes a bold claim about the Church being the pillar and foundation of the truth, yet we protestants say it is the Bible that is the pillar and foundation of the truth. How do we handle that? I don’t have the answer here, just a struggle to understand.

Andy,
Interesting passage – I wonder if the word church conveys the right meaning in the translation and how it connects with our various uses of the term. But I don’t see where Church with a capital C is in this passage. It rather seems like church in the sense of a local gathering of Christians in community together and then in relationship with other local gatherings of Christians.
I am convinced that being part of a local community of believers is an essential part of the Christian life. I am also convinced that God calls and ordains some as overseers and deacons. There will be leaders in the church.
You know though, I think that the multitude of denominations and factions we see is a direct result of the sins of Christians, primarily those who aspired to leadership roles and fell down on the job, sins on all sides … it permeates to the core. The biggest sins are by those who let personal glory, gain, and position gain the upper hand.

Andy — yes, Ted’s my brother!
Jim (#28) — ok, I agree with that concern. But in what way is the EC uniquely in danger of this? My sense is that many traditionalists fear the EC’s definition of “mission.” As McLaren puts it, the traditional evangelical church is fixated on “who’s in and who’s out” and “who gets to go to heaven,” whereas the mission of Jesus seems more about comforting the poor and healing the sick. Now, if the Great Tradition means emphasizing definitions and creeds and theories of atonement in order to determine “who’s in and who’s out,” then I’m with McLaren, and I’m really not interested.
This is my fear in Great Tradition talk, and why I don’t really trust that kind of talk. I’ve had 40 years of slicing and dicing who’s in and who’s out, including obsessing about whether I’m really, truly “in.” By God’s grace, I’d like to be done with that. It’s a kind of hell of it’s own.
This is another reason I deeply appreciate some of the postfoundationalist, progressive evangelical theology, particularly Grenz and Franke’s work, as well as the “missional” mainline stuff. The emphasis there is essentially eschatological and future-oriented: God is making everything new, the future as God sees it is breaking into the now, and we get to participate! If “Great Tradition” means that this participation entails joining an ancient community of mission that has a 2000-year history of reflection on the nature of God and the significance of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, from which we can drink deeply and which we can extend into our own circumstances — then I’m there, 110%.
Maybe I’d say this: if “Great Tradition” uses “tradition” in the sense that Alasdair MacIntyre would use it — something dynamic, living, extending through time — it’s an excellent usage. If “tradition” functions primarily like the metes and bounds of property lines function in a deed, I’m not sure it’s as helpful.

dopderbeck,
“If “Great Tradition” means that this participation entails joining an ancient community of mission that has a 2000-year history of reflection on the nature of God and the significance of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, from which we can drink deeply and which we can extend into our own circumstances — then I’m there, 110%.”
I think you nailed it. At least for me.
The folks at Nicaea were right. No church, no gospel. Because we are relational creatures, we can’t just read the Bible and do what’s right. We need somebody to learn from, and learn with. So, yeah.
But…because of the way our tradition has unfolded, we have this whole Christian pluralism thing, with whatever thousand denominations. Fine. We should be at peace with everyone, as far as it concerns us.

I appreciated this chapter and how Belcher sought to counter-weight concerns with missiology which often spend a great deal of time wrestling with our present cultural horizon, and concerns of tradition and Scripture which push us back to historical inquirery and prior patterns of being the church.
I couldn’t help but remember as I read this chapter what Jaroslav Pelikan wrote in his 5 volume’s on church history about how certain topics of theology are more featured in different eras of the churches life and how ecclesiology wasn’t as much featured during the formation of the ancient creeds. So what does that mean for us if a third way is done through incorporating the Great Tradition?
And how do we take a measured approach to evaluating the Great Tradition’s ecclesiology given that even forms of ecclesiology in the Bible where in-part culturally-conditioned?
This chapter left me with a lot of really good questions to walk through and wrestle with. Jim Belcher could you speak to either of these two questions?