Saturday, December 08, 2007

What the Church Is NOT, Part 3

Over the years I’ve noticed that the attitudes and actions of many Christians regarding the local church conform more to the patterns of the world than to the pattern of God’s Word. To correct several faulty perspectives on the church (there are many!), I wanted to examine four things the church is not. In the first article of this series, I suggested that the local church is not merely a human organization, but a divine institution—called by the Father, constituted by the person and work of Christ, and united by the Holy Spirit. In the second article, I asserted that the local church is not a supermarket of spiritual groceries, but a covenant community; we’re members of a family that calls for commitment, not customers of a business that’s competing with other shops for our patronage.

In this third installment, I want to address a different kind of misconception about the local church . . .

The Church is Not Just a Gathering of a Few Believers

Several years ago when some of my friends and I prayed for our food at McDonalds two scraggly-looking men approached from across the restaurant and introduced themselves as a church. You see, after visiting all the churches in the area they decided that none of them were preaching the true gospel, so those two men got together and decided, “We’ll be our own church.” I’ll never forget that encounter. There they stood, like the Lone Ranger and Tonto, grinning triumphantly in the bright fluorescent light, obviously proud of their do-it-yourself “church.” Sadly, those men were to Christianity what witch-doctors are to medicine. Whatever they were, they were not a church.

Today some Christians have dropped out of established churches in favor of “home churches” or “family churches.” While the concept of a church meeting in a home has biblical and historical precedence (Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:19), many times the organization called a “home church” is not a church at all, but just a bunch of disgruntled believers who couldn’t (or wouldn’t) make it work in a real church. But groups of Christians must have certain biblical marks and works to be regarded as legitimate churches. The church is not just a gathering of a few believers.

Let me be clear. A Bible study is not a church. It’s a Bible study. Getting together in the home for prayer is not a church. It’s a prayer meeting. A herd of Christians, with a guitar and tambourine is not a church. It’s a sing-along. A man or woman opening the Bible and preaching at a willing crowd is not a church. It’s an exercise of free speech. A gathering of saints for eating and gossiping (also called “fellowship”) is not a church. It’s a party. The church is not just a gathering of a few believers.

Some Marks and Works of a True Church

People often invoke Matthew 18:20 to support the idea that informal gatherings of a few saintly lambs counts as a church—“Where two or three are gathered in My name, I am there in the midst of them” But Jesus did not say, “Where two or three have gathered, there is the church.” A true church must consist of certain marks and works. Though pastors and theologians have categorized and listed the marks and works of a church in a variety of ways throughout history, they have generally been in agreement on what the Bible says about what constitutes a true church.

The marks of a local church include 1) orthodoxy—the proclamation of the central truths of the Christian faith regarding God, the person and work of Christ, and salvation; 2) order—the positions of qualified and properly-appointed biblical leaders; and 3) ordinances—the practice of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as the rite of sustained fellowship. Besides these three marks, three essential works of a church include 1) evangelism—gathering others to God by the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ; 2) edification—growing believers toward maturity in Christ through teaching and discipline; and 3) exultation—glorifying God through adoration and service. Any gathering that claims to be a church must have marks and works like these. If any of these are intentionally missing for a prolonged period of time, that organization is not a legitimate local church in the biblical and historical sense.

These marks and works not only place a church firmly on the foundation of the New Testament, but they also connect every true local church historically to the first church of the apostles. True churches should be able to follow an unbroken chain of orthodoxy, ordination, and ordinances back to the first century church. And today, all true churches are united in glorifying God through building out and building up the body of Christ worldwide. True local churches know are they are part of something bigger than themselves.

The Lone Ranger and Tonto Christians I met at McDonalds years ago were not a church. They had neither the marks nor the works of the church. They had neither the theological and historical depth nor the practical breadth of a true church. But sometimes we evangelicals can fall into the same kind of thinking. We can sometimes go to Sunday school class and think we did church. Or we can stay at home, do family devotions, pray, and sing songs and think we did church. Or we can just listen to a preacher on the radio and think we did church. Those may all be good things, contributing to our biblical knowledge and spiritual growth, but they are not church.

The church is not just a gathering of a few believers.

3 comments:

slangster said...

Hi Svigel,
Great blog - thought-provoking stuff.
I've just read "What the church is not - part3" and have a question.
You write, 'True churches should be able to follow an unbroken chain of orthodoxy, ordination, and ordinances back to the first century church.' - i think I understand what you mean by an unbroken chain of ordination, but i wonder if you could explain what you mean just to make sure that i do follow. And also show me scriptural support of this.
many thanks,
blessings,
Simon

Michael J. Svigel said...

The concept of ordination by the laying on of hands is ancient and biblical. I understand Paul's warning in 1 Tim 5:22 to refer to hastily ordaining a person to ministry out of "favoritism" (5:21). When one does this, they may ordain an unworthy person to spiritual leadership and thus "share in the sins of others." I also think this ordination is referred to at Paul's laying hands on Timothy (2 Tim 1:6; 4:14), which is in a context of passing down the faith (1:5). We often "spiritualize" these passages, and I believe there is something spiritual going on here, but there is also something quite practical---ordaining (appointing, approving, commissioning) a person to a particular ministry of leadership. Thus, Timothy was regarded as an ordained protege of Paul (1 Tim 1:2), appointed, apparently in a pastoral/ shepherding role, over the church in Ephesus (1:3).

This practice of laying hands on for commissioning/ordaining is common in the Old Testament (Num 27:23; Deut 34:9), and also used in the New Testament church for appointing to a particular ministry (Acts 6:6; 1 Tim 4:14).

In fact, in the earliest post-NT documents, we see the same pattern of appointing/ordaining leadership by the pastors/elders, with the approval of the congregation, when previous leaders pass away, etc. Clement of Rome, around AD 95, wrote, "They [the apostles] appointed their firstfruits, when they had tested them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons for the future believers" (1 Clem 42.4). He also wrote, "Our apostles likewise knew, thorugh our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife over the bishop's office. For this reason, therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the officials mentioned earlier and afterwards they gave hte offices a permanent character; that is, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. Those, therefore, who were appointed by them or, later on, by other reputable men with the consent of the whole church, and who have ministered to the flock of Christ blamelessly, humbly, peaceably, and unselfishly, and for a long time have been well spoken of by all---these men we consider to be unjustly removed from their ministry" (1 Clem 44.1-3). This is not the same as "apostolic" succession, but "episcopal" succession---the succession of the elders or leadership of the local church. Because of the OT background, the NT usage, and then the immediate post-NT testimony, I see a clear apostolic pattern established of ordaining (appointing/commissioning/approving) qualified leaders in places of teaching/shepherding authority in the local churches.

So, all I mean is this: a person can not baptize himself. A person can not ordain himself. He must be baptized or ordained by one who is already baptized or ordained. So, if we are part of the true Christian tradition, our baptism or ordination can be traced all the way back to the apostles. All I'm trying to avoid is people who baptize themselves (I RARELY encounter this), or people who ordain themselves (I have occasionally encountered this). I reject both and inauthentic marks of church order and ordinances.

I hope this helps at least clarify what I mean by this. You aren't, of course, required to agree... ;)

slangster said...

wow...I'm impressed....all that at 7.30 in the morning...my mind is still waking up at that time! thanks for the response.