ABC’s of a true church…

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? 

Comments

[Darryl]

Just thinking here, but does it also involve self-idenfication as a church? What about baptism and the Lord's Table? (Our Salvation Army friends might have a problem with this.)

[Eric Wilbanks]

Tod,

Thanks for your willingness to patiently and intelligently wrestle with these issues. It’s been a stimulating ride so far. Too bad this kind of thing rarely takes place inside the walls of the organizations for which you and I work. These kinds of topics are usually deemed way to complicated and/or divisive.

I want to address some of the issues you’ve raised in the last two posts.

First, you said of ecclesia, based on the works of Dr. Banks:

“But the early Christians took this same word to describe their most basic act of devotion and worship; they would gather. And those gatherings would not be random meetings, but regular, deliberate and purposeful assemblies to be “the church” for a particular locale. (The Big C Church for a specific place.) …Nor does it refer to the sum total of Christians in a region or scattered throughout the world at any particular time.”

While I appreciate the work of those such as Dr. Banks, neither of these statements can be substantiated if the Bible itself is your only source of authority on the subject. If you were to thoroughly examine every New Testament passage in which the word occurs, you would be forced to agree. Ecclesia is used to represent random gatherings. It’s also used to refer to a sum of believers across a region, of whom gathering would have been a near logistical impossibility.

Of course, this brings up an entirely different issue, which has to do with the weight to which we so unilaterally apply to other sources outside of scripture itself. While historical references to contextual patterns are often insightful, they are not in and of themselves authoritative.

So, while I continue to agree with your premise on the absolute necessity of covenantal community, I disagree that we’ve “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’.”

While it can be said that this was often the case (one could easily argue precedence), the New Testament itself does not support that legalistic a definition across the board. Indeed, the only way to lay such a foundation is exactly the way you did yourself:

-- According to historian…
-- In the reformation…
-- In John Knox’s Scots Confession…

Personally, I think the most fascinating journey possible would be one in which we used the same methods we are using here and went little by little through the NT -- with fresh, un-biased eyes -– and sought to re-discover exactly what the church is and what elements are essential for all centuries and cultures.

Maybe we would discover that we’ve had it right all along. Or maybe we wouldn’t…

[Bob A]

Where in scripture is a "universal" church (kirk) found? Matthew 16:18? I hear talk of "universal" but in most instances in scripture "church" is in reference to a "local" congregation. The governmental set up of church (pastors, elders,deacons,etc) found in the scriptures do not lend themselves to a "universal" setting but rather a "local" setting. Just wondering where is the "U" church (kirk) found in scripture I hear other refer to?

[James]

Bob-

Matthew 16:18 is the closest reference to the "universal" church in Scripture, because Jesus said that His church will be built upon the confession that He is Lord. This is not a reference to a local autonomous congregation; it is a reference to the whole of all who belong to the Lord.

The second area of Scripture that lends itself to the 'universal' church idea is the image of the church being the Body of Christ. If this image is only a reference to individual congregations then there are many 'bodies' of Christ, which is contrary to the idea of the "One Body" (see Eph. 4:4).

Third, the apostle Paul wrote letters to many different congregations that he called the church. He even asked that some of his letters be sent to other regions to be read by the congregations there, which also gives weight to the universal church idea (see Col 4:16).

Never once in his letters does he identify himself with one particular congregation, such as "I Paul, a member of the Antioch church, write to you. . ." There seems to be an implied understanding in the New Testament that Christians belong to the One Church, but gather together as a community in the city they live in. This is attested to by Paul, Timothy, Titus, Silas, and others who traveled to other congregations, participated in the ministry there, and exercised authority in those congregations all without 'placing membership' in those congregations. If the Church is one (universal) then there is no need to 'transfer membership' from one congregation to another, because all Christians belong to the one Body, the universal church.

Everytime I visit a congregation other than my home congregation, I do not have to place membership to be considered a brother in Christ. Why? Because I belong to the Lord's Church, i.e. the universal Church.

All that being said, it is still vitally important for the spiritual health of Christians that they be connected to a specific community of faith within the larger Body of Christ.

[Scot McKnight]

Bob,
Thanks for this; you've asked the only major question to be addressed to Barna's book: Where is the Church?

I personally would not go to John Knox, but to three major sources:

1. The Gospels and Jesus' fellowshipping with others.
2. The Acts' depiction of the "churches"
3. Pauline/Petrine teachings.

And I would also ask that we all admit that lots of what we'd like to know we don't know, and that therefore there's a lot of good sense that goes into answering proposals like that of Barna.

Good question; good probings.

[Derek Simmons]

Tod:
What about the "P"'s? You know: the 2 "P"'s in a "POD".*
Derek

*P1- property
P2- pensions
POD [Powers Our Denomination]

[Maria]

Tod,

Haven't read Barna's book yet, but I'm challenged by your interaction with it. I am currently reading two other books that are making me think about the question of church (even to the point of praying about launching a home church of my own). The first is Banks' The Church Comes Home. The other, more theological/philosophical is Fitch's The Great Giveaway. I'd love to read your take on the latter.

Blessings,

Maria

[David Davis]

When our national state determines to control "religion", a sad but very likely circumstance once the Constitution has been abrogated in order to address issues of terrorism and other global phenomenon, "church" will morph into much less institution. Our faith will require a more organic collaboration of small groups. Much of this discussion will become a moot point.
Prudence would dictate recognizing the tenor of the times and rather than holding forth on one position or another about organized expressions of Christianity--the pagan roots of what we currently do having been fully exposed, see Frank Viola's Pagan Christianity--
we should all be developing an understanding of holding forth the love of Jesus toward the Father, one another and the lost regardless of the instituional realities we currently know.
(I apologize that I do not know how to italicize or underline the title of the book mentioned. I am a pre-neophyte blogger!)

[Ross Purdy]

I don't go to church but I do associate and gather with other saints. I don't subscribe to any doctrinal statements, confessions, covenants nor to any clergy, four or five fold minitries, nor any college of elders. I do hold that having the strongest personal convictions is imperative. There must be freedom to challange one another and to be challenged. I don't practice any sacraments, ordinances, rituals, or comemerorations et al. I do try to live according to the finished product that the Lord's apostle Paul worked towards establishing, which is the "perfect man." The biggest mistake most saints are making, besides reforming a pagan institution, is to try to recreate /restore the pristine church at a point before Paul had established it to continue on without its "babysitters" and govenors. The church Paul was commissioned to establish among the Gentiles was an organic universal entity that was to manifest in local areas and not with a ruling clergy, but rather with a serving leadership without authority, only love and respect.

[David Davis]

Ross,

Agreed! Rather than recreate something, why not let the Lord establish with us what He will? What a joy to know that to attain the "perfect man" we but need to abide in Him who was perfect. He is able to teach us, comfort us, establish us, finish the work in us, glorify Himself through us and sustain us in faithfulness until the end.

[Doug]

I have to disagree with your assertion of what makes a church. One of my favorite churches (though not my own) is The Salvation Army. They do not practice the sacraments. While I disagree with their reasoning behind this, I still believe the are following hard after God. Church is much more about community with God and with each other than about structure, denomination or any other modernistic add-on to God's Word.

I love the quote you use from the Rise of Christianity because it speaks more of the movement of faith that is the church than the this like apostolic succession which is largely unprovable. The other things you list are much more about a movement of Christ-followers than ritual, literugy or anything else.

[Kirk]

Take your shots at Barna, but I think criticizing him ignores a larger problem. The structure of the church today may very well be the root cause of the phenomenon Barna is discussing. Let me give you two examples. First, where is the one-man speaking on a Sunday model of church in Scripture? (I Corinthians 14 says 2 or 3 should prophesy and that all could prophesy and learn. See 14:5-6, 14:23-24) I went to a Bible-preaching church with a 3,000 member congregation that had problems staffing its youth ministries. Spectators on Sunday breeds spectators Monday through Saturday. Second, where is the corporate prayer on Sunday mornings? Paul tells Timothy in I Timothy 2:1-8 that prayer should be a priority and that THE MEN in EVERY PLACE (presumably every house church) should be lifting their hands in prayer. Very few churches have a time of true corporate prayer at all and even fewer on Sundays when everyone can be there. Jesus said, "My house shall be called a house of...not preaching, not praise, not programs...a house of prayer." The brother who talked about reading the NT with an unbiased eye is spot on! We must get back to BEING the church (Barna has the right, sorry to say) and stop GOING to church.

[John]

I am 6 years young in the Lord and my posting may seem a little youthful, but this is a revelation my spirit is soaking in and I wanted to participate. You have see that the Lord is going to have to begin to connect his ecclesia (called out one's) because through the mordern church(kirk), the tribalism will never allow the revalations you and lots of other saints are now receiving to happen. I have met a lot of saints that are leaving the Kirk and beginning to understand their identity and destiny as sons of the Living God. I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Christ. I am baptist, catholic, Lutheran, Penticostal. The institutional church will never allow the radical ideas you saints are expressing to be accepted within the institution. I have asked the same questions you all are asking to people in some local churches and I have to say that I have not been recieved. People are praying for my family because they think we are falling away or forsaking the assembly. I have found the the modern day Kirk is very protective of the "assembly." May we always and only do what we see the Father doing.

[john b stone]

I like reading a well read pastor's thoughts. AFter reading comments, some quite penetrating, I detect the 'anabaptist' drift, do I not? More and more atomistic, self concerned and less concerned with mission to a dying world...after all, isn't that why the churches of the NT banded together their prayers, people and lastly, monies to expand the Gospel message to spread the worship of Jesus Christ in a darkened world? Tthat takes cooperation even with a spectator mentality as a danger, we must at the same time be aware that little house churches cannot do what larger Bodies can do. Training future pastors, sending missionaries, etc.
Hence, go back and read of Calvin's Geneva, et al.