One...

Surveying the landscape of Christian churches and pseudo-Christian churches (there are more of these than we think) it is hard to imagine that at one time in history the church could have been called "one". The Apostles Creed dates back to around 150 AD and is an early collection of statements that are essential to Christian faith. Among these essential statements is a belief in "one...church".

Really?

Could a new believer be confessing a commitment to "one...church"? Could the congregation be reaffirming their baptism by confessing "one...church"?

How is this possible? And, more importantly, can we go back? Well, it is possible and we can go back...sort of.

Michael Svigel treats this very issue in his book, Retro-Christianity. He spells out a path to unity that can be embraced as always, everywhere, and by all. For Svigel there is unity through the essential marks of the church. And frankly, there is disunity when these essential marks fail to be present. He uses the confession of the Apostles Creed to make his stance, "We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church."

Oneness:

The first essential mark of a church is oneness. Is the church that we are attending incorporated into the body of believers that are present always and everywhere? For some the confirmation of this truth is simply mental assent. They would affirm a connection but if asked how they are connected it would probably be hard for them to answer. The truth is that we have lost our paths of connection by becoming overly denominational. We have to work at overcoming some of this through fellowship and bringing historical connections into worship. Svigel says,

"Every generation should strive to bear out the oneness of the church by seeking unity between other orthodox believers and churches despite the ever-present reality of doctrinal and practical diversity." 

 This connection cannot be merely spiritual either.

"We must conceive of the church as having both a spiritual nature and a physical nature, without mixture, confusion, separation, or division."

Holiness:

The church is not perfect. No one believer is perfect (my apologies to the pope). But the church, as a whole, is a sanctified union. That does not mean that there are no physical flaws. Just as is true for individuals, the collective church is being ever sanctified into a holy existence. This is also spiritual and physical. Svigel says,

"Theologically, the church of the elect is sanctified (set apart), reckoned holy by the decree of God in light of the cleansing work of Christ and the anticipation of the future purification in the resurrection and glorification of the church. However, in this present time, the church is characterized by both the presence of sin and the process of purification."

Catholic(ness):

There are many that have warped the word "catholic". Some will not even confess the word in the Apostles Creed and instead say "Christian" church. I get the sentiment. But isn't it preferable to take the word back from those that hijacked it in the first place? "Catholic" is not a sect of Christianity. Catholic is the church everywhere and everyone that professes faith in Christ. Svigel explains,

"So when we confess the catholicity of the church, we mean the that the church as a whole share in a confession and a commission that transcend time, place, culture, and language. These also rise above denominational differences and theological distinctives. Every generation of Christians should therefore strive to overcome their provincial and temporal concerns and readily align themselves with the "community of communities" of orthodox Christianity."

By the way, Ignatius was the first to use the word "catholic" and by his use the Roman Catholic Church doesn't fit the bill. It has turned renegade and claimed for itself power that was never afforded it by the Christian faith.

Apostolicity(ness):

The tradition of the Apostles (the first "sent ones" of Jesus) is preserved for us in the Holy Scriptures. Every orthodox church will accept this claim. Where we begin to differ is how we build upon this foundation of Scripture. Each church is apostolic if it is faithfully recognizing the teachings of Scripture and recognized as in line with apostolic teaching by those churches that are also faithful to this line. Well, that is what Tertullian said, anyway.

Which brings us to my point (and Michael Svigel's). Where do we turn to build upon the foundation of Scripture? I would suggest a return to the writings of the early church fathers as well as subsequent generations. By this we can establish the historical authenticity of our message and have a stronger foundation to expel heretical messengers (my apologies to Joel Olsteen) or at least show would-be followers their break with apostolic witness.

It is my hope that we will return to the great gifts given us by our fathers and through responsible efforts live in the reality of one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.