In his book, Revolution, Mr. Barna has written, “You see, it’s not church. It’s about the Church—that is the people who actively participate in the intentional advancement of God’s Kingdom in partnership with the Holy Spirit and other believers.”
Mr. Barna’s description of “the Church” is so compelling to me, that I enthusiastically want to throw up my hand and indicate that I am one in this number. This describes my passion for living. But is it enough to focus on the Church without the church? Is fellowship or partnership with the Holy Spirit and other believers enough?
In my last post, we looked at the New Testament understanding of “church” and saw that for the earliest Christians, “church” was a very specific gathering of people out to accomplish the work of the “Church”. Like the old song about “Love and Marriage” says, “You can’t have one without the other.”
But, the lingering question in this series of posts is what exactly makes a church a church? Is it just “where two or more are gathered” in Jesus’ name? Or does it need to be affiliated, structured and institutionalized in some way? Could a family be rightly called a church? Or is there something beyond the family that is necessary? Is any gathering of Christians a church? or is "church" more than "fellowship"?
In Revolution, George Barna writes about “spiritual mini-movements” or what he considers “God-centered endeavors taking place beyond the congregation (p. 54).” And clearly indicates that he believes that these “spiritual mini-movements” are the latest manifestation of the Church today. No congregation necessary, just lots of affiliations of Christians all working together for the good of the Kingdom in any way that is beneficial to one’s faith. That is attractive of course, but is it biblical? Is it even historically consistent with what past generations of Christians understood Jesus to be initiating when he told Peter, “Upon this rock I will build my church…”?
According to historian Rodney Stark, Christianity’s rapid growth in the earliest centuries was because the Church was lived out as the church. In his book, The Rise of Christianity, he writes,
“Christianity did not grow because of miracle working in the marketplace (although there may have been much of that going on) or because Constantine said it should, or even because martyrs gave it such credibility. It grew because Christians constituted an intense community…And the primary means of it’s growth was through the unified and motivated efforts of the growing numbers of Christian believers, who invited their friends, relatives and neighbors to share the good news.” p. 208
So what were the “marks” of that “intense community”? What makes a church a church? In the reformation, those reared on St. Cyprian’s maxim (“You can’t have God as father without the church as your mother”), believed that to break with the Roman church was akin to forfeiting salvation. They responded, not by saying that Rome was irrelevant, but instead by asserting that Rome had failed to be a true church. (This has led to some very unfortunate divisions and castigations between groups, but the point remains that not even those who broke with “The church” saw themselves as able to be “a church” very easily.)
So throughout the reformation, leaders sought to discern the qualities that were necessary for the church to be the Church. One such section is in John Knox’s Scots Confession “The Marks of the True Kirk” (kirk means church) which to this day guides Presbyterians: (Chapter 18)
The notes of the true Kirk, therefore, we believe, confess, and avow to be: first, the true preaching of the word of God, in which God has revealed himself to us, as the writings of the prophets and apostles declare; secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus, to which must be joined the word and promise of God to seal and confirm them in our hearts; and lastly, ecclesiastical discipline uprightly ministered, as God's word prescribes, whereby vice is repressed and virtue nourished. Then wherever these notes are seen and continue for any time, be the number complete or not, there, beyond any doubt, is the true kirk of Christ, who, according to his promise, is in the midst of them. This is not that universal kirk of which we have spoken before, but particular kirks, such as were in Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, and other places where the ministry was planted by Paul and which he himself called kirks of God.
As a Presbyterian pastor, I find this to be a pretty good list. But as I look back at the New Testament I want to lift up some other qualities that I see present that may have simply been assumed. So, to further discussion, I will offer what I believe to be a New Testament understanding of what makes a church a church. I’ll give you the whole list and then linger over each of them in successive posts. In alphabetical form they are:
Apostolic Authority
Biblical (“Berean”) Faithfulness
Covenantal Relationships
Discipline
Elimination of Social Boundaries
And… (skipping to the letter “K” here…)
Kingdom Witness
So, at first glance, am I missing anything?
