In the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, Christians confess they believe “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” It is an important phrase to remember, because it reminds us of the marks of what the true Church is. Other marks of the true Church were suggested at the time of the Reformation: the preaching of the Word, the administration of the sacraments, and the exercise of discipline (see The Belgic Confession Art. XXIX). However, the definitive features of American churches have been the subject of less consideration.. In The Lively Experiment, church historian Sidney E. Mead states what he takes to be the marks of the American denominations. One of these marks, ‘historylessness’, invites examination alongside a patristic work, The Commonitory of Vincent of Lerins.
Mead explains that since the eighteenth century, American Christians have tended to ignore history and go directly to the New Testament for the arrangement of churches. While this seems to be a sound principle, if not done properly It treats all of church history after the New Testament as irrelevant. All the insights that may be gleaned from our forebears in the faith are lost when we try to start over on our own, and mistakes that have already occurred will needlessly be repeated as we miss the warnings due to a lack of historical humility. As Mead notes, “each found his version of ‘the church’ to be identical with the Church of the Bible… promoters had no mind to be bound by the past and little thought that wisdom might be found… between the first and the nineteenth centuries” (111-112). This lack of historical consciousness resulted in “serv[ing] many times to bind them to the obvious tendencies of the moment” (112). This is not a good position for churches to be found in. Only historical contextualization will allow for us to critically evaluate our doctrines and practices conservatively and realistically.
In contrast Vincent of Lerins explains in his Commonitory how one can uphold the faith delivered to the saints—the catholic faith—by maintaining “universality, antiquity, [and] consent” (chapter II). Vincent identifies the particular insight antiquity offers, for “at this day [it] cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty” (ch. III). This is a very useful insight from Vincent. The Church of the past cannot be blown about by the winds of doctrine that we face today. Moreover, the Christian faith cannot change in its substance, though we may grow in our understanding of it through the centuries by collectively searching the unfathomable depths of its truth. As Vincent puts it so well, “the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds” (ch. XXIII). Our forebears in the faith can be our friends today, as we literarily engage with them to contemplate the mysteries of the Christian religion. The bishops who once faithfully watched over their flocks can protect us from error today, if we will heed their guidance. What should be emphasized, especially today, is that part of the Church’s catholicity is historicity, its connection with antiquity. The Church is not only universally extended throughout the earth, but throughout the ages. Our communion with the historic Church must be as real as our communion with other Christians living today because the one faith is that which has been delivered to us (see II Tim. 1.13, Heb. 13.8, Jude 3). Those that came before us are fathers in the faith so that it is necessary that we should honor them even as the moral Law commands us; this does not diminish our responsibility to submitting those that are over us in the Church today. It is not optional for us to be in continuity with the historic Church, because Christianity has made its way to the present day by no other means except through the continued witness of the historic Church, where Jesus Christ is present.
