Quid Est Ecclesia?—Ecclesiology, or the Christian Church(es) in Eternity, and in the Ever-Changing Flow of Time and Space

Several factors contributed to the fact that after World War II, the field of ecclesiology undoubtedly experienced a “renaissance” (Avis 2019, pp. 1–2); if we accept this analogy, in the 21st century, the discipline itself is now in its own “Modern Age”. In other words, it is a dynamically evolving field of study that handbooks and comprehensive monographs periodically attempt to systematize. In addition to these, a great many case studies contribute to the field of ecclesiology, which continues to attract interest (Avis 2019, pp. 11–12). This is a discipline that is undoubtedly capable of enriching the field of ecclesiology, even through studies whose authors did not conduct their research with this specific aim in mind. After all, even a researcher who analyzes only a single aspect, period, or figure of a Christian church naturally engages with the essence of the church.

One of the most significant scenes in Christian salvation history—and one that has given rise to the most analysis—was when Jesus Christ stood before Pontius Pilate’s judgment seat. What made Pilate’s famous question truly intriguing was the fact that the answer was standing right in front of him, yet he failed to notice it (“Quid est Veritas?”/“What is truth?” John 18:38). According to Christian teaching, Jesus Christ is the truth (John 14:6). If we apply the field of ecclesiology to this story, we see a similar pattern. The theologian, the church historian, and the social scientist ask the question: “Quid est Ecclesia?”/“What is Church?”. Although it stands before us, we do not see it, nor can we see it—at most, we can perceive certain manifestations of it.

Numerous introductory handbooks and studies deal with the field of ecclesiology. These provide a detailed explanation of what ecclesiology entails, and comprehensive theoretical and historiographical analyses are also available. Broadly speaking, it is a theological discipline concerned with the nature of the church, although it can be interpreted in both a narrower and a broader sense.

The narrower interpretation is primarily spiritual and general in nature; therefore, it is discussed mainly by philosophical thinkers, theologians, and the priests and pastors of the various churches themselves. In this vein, the church is understood as a spiritual community whose members are bound together by an inner, religious bond, regardless of whether they live far apart in time and space. We might also call this a kind of common, Christ-centered foundation, at the heart of which lies faith in the redemption of Jesus Christ (again, regardless of space and time), as well as the demand that this conviction also determine the practical realization of the individual’s life. The narrower, spiritual interpretation of ecclesiology is fundamentally directed toward the individual.

The approach to a broader interpretation of ecclesiology raises the question of whether this “crystal-clear,” spiritual manifestation of the church actually exists—or ever has existed—in reality and in practice. Every study dealing with ecclesiology can convince us that since the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the first Pentecost, it has not, in fact, existed, except perhaps in theory. For over the past two thousand years, the church has existed not merely in theory, but in a very practical, real form—or, more precisely, forms. For church historians, sociologists of religion, and other social scientists, the church thus appears not as a spiritual entity but as a very real community. The nature of the relationship among members is thus fundamentally determined by space and time. Indeed, it is hardly blasphemous to treat it as a fact that, rather than speaking of “the” church of Jesus Christ, we must speak of his churches in history and in present reality.

The two interpretations of ecclesiology—one primarily spiritual and the other primarily historical and sociological—are incompatible, and this is not a problem. The former approach is based on the premise that “the” church was created, shaped, and governed by God (Avis 2019, pp. 7–8). According to the latter approach, the motivations behind the formation, ongoing operation, and governance of churches can be understood through social and political history, as well as the sociology of religion.

The introductory remarks of a recently published comprehensive handbook summarize all of this thoroughly: “Ecclesiology is a discipline that, broadly speaking, examines the church’s identity and activity, its theological definition(s) and temporal existence, and thus its divinely established reality as one people and the seemingly contingent reality of its various historical instantiations and diverse forms of doctrines, polities, ministries, liturgies, rituals, and practices. Ecclesiology in its most expansive undertaking engages all of the attendant questions that surround the church’s placement within God’s salvific economy and takes full account of all the paradoxes, peculiarities, and practices that accompany a people whose origin lies in eternity and who looks to a heavenly destiny, yet whose embodied life is firmly rooted on earth and whose ministry is carried out in the world across the span of centuries.” (Bender and Long 2020, p. 1).

Incidentally, the broader approach mentioned above is actually based on biblical principles. St. Paul himself spoke of perceiving “divisions” within the Christian community, and it seems that he viewed this more as a natural phenomenon in the life of the church—as something “necessary.” (1Cor 11:18–19). Undoubtedly, the history of the Christian church is also a history of schisms. In other words, the history of the various Christian churches cannot be summarized into a single, shared history of the spiritual church of Jesus Christ. New Christian movements have emerged one after another, with some viewing themselves as renewal movements within the church, while others have broken away to form new organizations (Avis 2019, pp. 22–24). Certain common features can be identified regarding organizational separation and the founding of new churches: 1. Every new Christian movement and community considered itself to be the true church. They often doubted the possibility of salvation for “Christians of a different persuasion,” convinced that they alone represented the truth of Christ. 2. In every case, the desire to return to biblical roots was the motivation for organizational separation, or was at least cited as a basis for reference; yet in all such instances, they felt that “others” had strayed from the one true path leading to salvation. 3. The separation created some degree of conflict, which manifested in many ways, ranging from simple doctrinal disputes to religious wars. 4. They were always linked to one or a few key figures: a charismatic pastor, teacher, or leader. 5. Drawing from a common biblical foundation, every new church and denomination tends to highlight one or another defining teaching. Christianity offers a rich treasure trove of moral commandments, principles of divine truth, and practical guidance for daily life. They emphasize one or another of these while pushing the rest into the background, thereby highlighting their distinct character and identity.

It is true of all the various Christian movements, renewal movements, and denominations that their origins and missions were closely tied to the era in which they existed, bearing the distinct imprints of that time. The teachings of Christianity have been emphasized differently across various historical periods and social contexts. If we wish to understand the meaning of the concept of the church (that is, the actual subject of ecclesiology) in a given era, we must understand the society in which the church carried out its mission (Avis 2019, p. 13). The poor and the rich, landlords and serfs, owners and employees—their relationships and influence have always shaped the messages of the shared Christian faith, the organization of the church, the position of its clergy, and many other aspects related to the church.

In addition to the social conditions of each era, another important factor that has always influenced the concept of the church is political power (Avis 2019, pp. 10–11). Perhaps the case studies in this Special Issue are also persuasive in showing that the most important factor underlying the activities, messages, support, and success of churches was the political system in which they lived and operated. For whatever the attitude of those in power was toward the church, it influenced its functioning. Emperors, kings, and governments often felt that some churches were closer to them, while others were more distant. Since the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, many people in power have felt that the sign of the cross would lead them to victory (“In hoc signo vinces!”/“You will win in this sign!”), which, in practice, led to Christianity—or a Christian church—being treated as a political factor, providing one of the institutional or spiritual foundations for the establishment and maintenance of power. The political system has posed the greatest challenge to Christian churches in every era. Both entanglement with power and resistance to it were equally dangerous. For church leaders and members over the past two thousand years, it has been an eternal dilemma how to respond to the temptations of power, and indeed, they often chose alternatives other than what Jesus represented during his temptation in the wilderness (Lk 4:5–8). Undoubtedly, the image of the church was shaped when Christians were persecuted by those in power, who sought to eradicate the very existence of their church—sometimes along with the church members themselves. Persecution could come from another religion or another Christian church, but also from a state that rejected all forms of religion, as the 20th century provided so many examples of. Cooperation with the authorities, or resistance to them, articulates one of the most important patterns and dilemmas of ecclesiology. In modern times, Christianity itself has often been transformed into a political ideology; one need only think of 19th-century political Catholicism, or the fact that the birth of modern nations and nationalisms very often had a church-based and/or religious background (Knight 2007, pp. xx–xxii).

However, churches in different eras have faced other, similar dilemmas, and additional circumstances have influenced the image that churches have of themselves, as well as the image that others have formed of them. For example, the size of the church itself and the number of its supporters and followers are such factors. In a given society, different images of the church emerged in minority churches and majority denominations that integrated a significant portion of the population. The “churches of the people” developed self-images that were quite different from those of smaller, marginal groups (“elite church”). This had an impact, for example, on their mission and on religious people’s relationship to their own faith. In other words, “missionary” and “evangelical” churches represented a different model than those into which church members had been “born” over generations, and whose relationship with their church was limited to formal attendance at worship services—or not even that. (Since their baptism, they had merely mentioned in adulthood that they were members of the church, but they had no emotional connection to the church and did not follow the religion’s commandments in their private lives.)

A distinctive feature of ecclesiology is its relationship to the “spirit of the age.” This relationship differed in the medieval history of European states, during the age of modernization, in the northern and southern parts of the American continent, during the turbulent periods of the 20th century, and so on (Avis 2019, pp. 24–25). But one thing is certain: churches have had to formulate responses to the challenges of the ever-changing world around them, such as the transformation of the technological landscape and the spread of new customs and communication methods. It has always been a challenge to determine how the church itself, along with the principles and values that it represents, can remain unchanged amid changing circumstances. (Can it remain unchanged at all?) The question arose: what should the church be—reflective or proactive? Which changes should it seek to lead, and which should it keep at a distance? In certain eras, the “spirit of the age” prompted fundamental rethinking within religious communities; such was the case, for example, in the 19th century (Knight 2007, pp. xvi–xvii), but so too is the phenomenon of globalization in the 20th and 21st centuries. The “spirit of the age” has often created a situation in which the church has faced a dilemma: should it be an inclusive, integrating church that strives for mutual acceptance and understanding, or rather an institution that militantly opposes teachings that are deemed erroneous and suggests exclusivity? (Ecclesiology also has a distinctly ecumenical approach: Avis 2019, pp. 13–14).

Within the field of ecclesiology, further branches and dilemmas can be identified, such as the two differing interpretations of the relationship between the church and Christ: “One type understands this ministry to be a proclamation of the perfect work of Christ’s substitutionary and salvific work, while another sees it as the prolongation of Christ’s own exemplary and sanctifying ministry.” (Bender and Long 2020, p. 2). Other perennial theological dilemmas concern the relationship to the Old Testament, the question of the Christian attitude toward Judaism and toward the ancient or modern state of Israel (Bender and Long 2020, pp. 2–3), and the assessment of the Holy Spirit’s presence in the world (Avis 2019, pp. 7–8).

The author of a volume on ecclesiology poses this important question and then gives an important answer: “How does the diversity of the church affect ecclesiology? Because the church is radically and essentially embodied in the human, worldly context, it is radically and essentially varied and diverse in its manifestations and expressions. To put it at its very lowest, churches are not the same; they are not identical in their teaching, worship, discipline, polity, self-definition, views of each other, and many other aspects of their practice.” (Avis 2019, p. 10). Furthermore, ecclesiology has developed numerous approaches drawn from other social sciences, which have inspired in-depth research and led to important studies (see, e.g., for “feminist”, “realistic”, “pastoral”, “ethnographic”, etc., Avis 2019, pp. 15–18).

In this Special Issue, we did not aim to provide a comprehensive overview of ecclesiology, but rather to demonstrate just how diverse this field of study is. In compiling this collection of studies on ecclesiology, we established the following guiding principle: ecclesiology “is concerned with comparative, critical, and constructive reflection on the dominant paradigms of the identity of the church” (Avis 2019, p. 5). The book covers various historical periods, regions, and issues in church history and the sociology of religion.

Sándor Fekete has made a successful attempt to provide a comprehensive history of the Reformed Church in Hungary, capturing its most significant historical turning points. (“The Development of the Reformed Church in Hungary”). Péter Tusor’s choice of topic was also inspired by Hungarian history and characterized by a perspective that spans multiple historical periods. He did not focus on a single church (although the topic is closely tied to Catholicism) but rather examined the political and ideological connections of a sacred monument, highlighting the wide range of possible interpretations of ecclesiology (“Church, State, and the Hungarian Holy Crown Between Past and Present”). A church from another continent, with a different social context, and a subject of extensive study by religious scholars—the “Black Church” phenomenon—is another focus of our Special Issue, in which Charles E. Goodman summarizes his research findings on this topic (“Resilient Ecclesiology: The Adaptive Identity of the Black Church in Diaspora Contexts”). Another study of far-reaching significance is included in this Special Issue: the work by Katarzyna Kowalik of Poland and her three co-authors, which addresses one of the church’s most sensitive ethical issues within a European context (“The Church and the Law: Catholic Ecclesiology and Its Influence on Bioethical Legislation in Contemporary Europe”).

If we approach the contents of this Special Issue from a chronological perspective, we must first mention two studies on ancient history: Efrat Urbach has addressed an extremely specialized topic, focusing on one of the most important yet under-explored aspects of Christian worship—hymns and the musical backdrop of the church (““Sing Unto the Lord a New Song”: Musical Innovation at the Boundaries of Schism”). Gyula Homoki has re-examined the history of Montanism within the context of church history and supplemented it from a primarily ecclesiological perspective (“Contours of the Holy Jerusalem on Earth: Elements of Montanist Ecclesiology”).

Two studies also examine denominational relations in Central Europe during the early modern period. Peter Šoltés’s article applies the theory of “Second Confessionalization” to trace the transformation of the concept of the church in the period immediately following the spread of the Reformation (“Self-Image and Mutual Perception of the Catholic and Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Upper Hungary in the Context of the Second Confessionalization”). Viktor Kanász’s study also focuses on the transformation of the church during the Council of Trent, an event that marked a milestone in Catholic church history (“Catholic Reform in the Shadow of the Ottoman Wars—The Kingdom of Hungary and the Council of Trent”).

Of the “spirits of the age” mentioned above, one of the most significant—and the phenomenon that exerted the greatest influence on the Catholic Church’s self-image and mission—was the Enlightenment. Two studies in our Special Issue examine the reactions that emerged from within the Catholic Church. Based on original research, both works provide a detailed analysis of the conflict-ridden relationship between the Enlightenment and Catholicism (András Forgó: “The Changing Image of the Church in the Thought of the Enlightened Catholic Intelligentsia”; Rita Szuly: “Papal Encyclicals and Episcopal Circular Letters—Episcopal Attitudes and Perceived Roles in 18th-Century Hungary”).

The modernization of the 19th century brought about an intellectual transformation of comparable significance and importance to the Enlightenment, which also compelled the Roman Catholic Church, in particular, to take stock and formulate new kinds of responses. Through the life stories and public appearances of a Hungarian bishop and a German monk-theologian, the reader gains insight into the process that documents the shift in Catholic thought and the attempts to resolve the tensions between tradition and modernity (Szabolcs Nagy: “The Political Activities of a Catholic Church Leader During the Period of Secularization in Hungary”; Máté Botos: “Apologetics Based on Theology and on History: Anti-Liberalism as Anti-Modernism in the Writings of Albert Maria Weiß OP”).

In the 20th century, turbulent political upheavals, regime changes, and dictatorships put the work of Christian churches and clergy to the test, forcing them to reevaluate their understanding of the church’s mission under terrible circumstances. This was particularly true in the Central and Eastern European region. Ibolya Szamborovszky-Nagy and Ferenc Radvánszky examine the Transcarpathian Hungarian Reformed Church—a church facing a “double” minority status—during the final stages of World War II (“On the Margins of an Unrealized Church Schism: On the Two Interpretations of the Concept of Church Among the Reformed in Transcarpathia After the Change of Power in 1944”). Through the trials and tribulations of a Hungarian Lutheran pastor, we can see how a church leader who obeyed the commandments of his faith came into conflict with the dictatorships that swept through the region in the 20th century (Géza Vörös and Viktória Czene-Polgár: “Christian Social Care Under the Communist Dictatorship: The Persecutions of a Priest Rescuing Children”). Gábor Bánkuti’s choice of topic was shaped by an interesting and innovative analytical perspective: he examined the shifts in the image that 20th-century Catholic priests held of the church and priesthood—an image that was transformed by traumatic experiences (“Towards a New Understanding of Vocation—Historical Traumas as Catalysts for the Changing Self-Perception of the Lower Clergy in the 20th Century”).