We didn't cover it here, I don't think.
The Church as relationship with/within God begins before time with the internal fellowship of the Trinity. As far as humanity is concerned, it begins with Adam.
I would suggest it began with the creation of the first creatures, the noetic beings. The Church is the gathering of creatures in Communion with God. The word in Greek, which St. Paul uses a lot is ekklesia from ekkalein, which means something like called out.
Not a new coinage, but an old Greek word, which generally meant practically an assembly or gathering of persons.
So putting the etymology together with its quotidian playing out, we get something like: the assembly of those who were called out.
So I would suggest such a definition would only apply to those called out by God. I think there is a felicitous aspect of language at work. We were called into being. The Father was not. The Son is begotten. The Holy Spirit proceeds.
FWIW, the word qahal, which certainly got glossed as ekklesia, has a similar etymology and pragmatic upshot.
So this is just to say where I think the Church began and when, if such words can be used.
If we are in agreement here or close enough. Then we have to ask what is the ontological nature of the Church. I think my definition above is broad enough to begin: the Church is the gathering of creatures in Communion with God.
If we can agree this broad definition captures something (I am not sure how finely we need to dice for internets' and sanity's sake) of the ontological nature (I hate that turn of phrase) of the Church, then I think we can move rather forward in a reasonable manner to answering your question.
Let me know what you think.
Your definition makes sense to me, though I have difficulties with how it includes the Church as "institution" (Why does a voluntary assembly need it's own money? But perhaps I'm being influenced by some modern House Church Only advocates I've come across...) But at any rate, yes, I can accept your description.
We ain't to any "institution" as such yet.
OK, if we can agree that the Church is something like: the Church is the gathering of creatures in Communion with God.
There is a problem in our definition or something that we have not discussed at least.
In virtue of what is a being in Communion with God?
What do you think? Let's keep this "simple". We will try to not to get too sophisticated at this point.
In full disclosure, I anticipate some difficulty here, as there is a certain approach most people take here, and I am trying to make that clear.
Since we are trying a couple things at once I believe:
Figure out what your assumptions are.
Show what my assumptions are.
See if they make any sense within Orthodoxy.
See if to what degree we can or cannot accept the Orthodox understanding of what the Church is.
Right now, if I can be so arrogant, for you, the first matter is of most import.
Without getting a handle a little bit on some our implicit assumptions, how can we jump into the fracas built upon our assumptions with any sanity or usefulness?
If we are not willing to simply submit to the Church as Orthodoxy understands it, which I am.
If we have not learn to then trust and faith in the Orthodox Church, as I have.
Then, we can have a productive conversation at least. And I think that can never hurt.
We'll see.
So back to the question:
In virtue of what is a being in Communion with God?
p.s. Of course, I just think going to liturgy a lot is the best answer, but here we are.
Fair enough. I'll shelve the orange tree thing. I've never been good at sussing out my own assumptions...
The Church is the gathering of creatures in communion with God.
In virtue of what is a being in Communion with God? In virtue of his submission to God. "I am the Lord's handmaiden. Let it be done to me as you have said." The more we surrender everything in us, the more He comes in and "sups" with us.
I think this a great answer to start with and nice line of Scripture, though I dislike the use of the word
handmaiden, been a pet peeve since a kid, as I thought
handmaiden sounded "lame" and I was correct to come to find out.
Anyway.
You didn't fall into a snare I was concerned might get in the way!
So, let's take a look at our agreed statement about the Church (I hope this doesn't come across patronizing, even through we can scroll, I find keeping our base statements in the forefront of the discussion will help, I apologize if it seems otherwise):
The Church is the gathering of creatures in communion with God.
I asked about how
a creature remains in communion with God.
It was a bit of a test, I admit. And perhaps a pre-emptive caution to avoid going down a road to nowhere.
But the more difficult and salient question lies in:
In virtue of what are a
gathering of creatures in communion with God?
If this is too tedious, I understand.
Again there is no "correct" answer here, just seeing what our assumptions are. We can always change our minds, if we miss step or miss speak / write.
I am sure you see my reasoning by asking the one question before the other. If not, think about it.
Also, I bet this last question is harder to answer or not as simply. I admit it is for me.
If you share that difficulty, why do you think it is, and if the former question is easier, and the latter more difficult, can you see where things might lead taking the easier route to the degree we might even avoid the more difficult question?
In any case answer the primary question, the others you can table, or expound upon if you wish.
Or you can tell me I am full of S.