Category Archives: 6. Ecclesiology: The Church

Beyond the Preference-Driven Church: Revisiting the Marks and Works of the Church, Part 4—ORDINANCES

Posted on by

So far in this series on the Marks and Works of the church, we explored the first two essential Marks of Orthodoxy and Order. To maintain a balanced Orthodoxy, we must focus on the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith in our preaching and teaching, which will exclude destructive heresy and allow for diverse views on non-essentials. To uphold a proper biblical church Order, church leaders (pastor-elders and deacons) must lead with wisdom and humility and the congregation must obey and submit to the ordained leadership. But before we move on to the essential Works of a church, we must discuss the third Mark—Ordinances.

A Rare Instance of Radical Advice

Not long ago a young man contacted me with concerns over his church’s apparent teaching and practice of communion. He reported that the pastor of their church taught that the biblical Lord’s Supper was never intended to hold a special place in church worship. Rather, the Lord’s Supper, he said, was any meal that believers enjoyed together. In fact, that Bible Church pastor boldly asserted that the traditional in-church observance of the Lord’s Supper is a “bastardization” of its original intent (these are his words, not mine!). And he added that he partook of the Lord’s Supper three times a day—whenever he broke bread with fellow believers at breakfast, lunch, or dinner!

This radical teaching sounded strange to my friend. And rightly so! All his life he had been taught that the Lord’s Supper was a special, solemn rite of the covenanted church community—an integral and special part of Christian worship. So, unsure of how to handle the situation at his church, he called me for advice. My response to him was simple: confirm that this was really what the pastor taught . . . then leave that “church” and bring as many people with him as he could.

For those of you who know my view on local church commitment, this may sound shocking. I can count on one hand the times in my life I’ve recommended that people actually leave their local churches. (See my essay, “Leaving Church” here.) However, when a church’s leadership intentionally tampers with a foundational Mark of the local church, that organization comes dangerously close to losing its legitimacy as a true biblical church. That “church” may be a teaching ministry, it may be a worship experience, and it may contribute in its own way to the nourishment and growth of believers. But without the essential biblical Marks, that organization is not a living local body of Christ.

Some of you may be scratching your heads, wondering, “What’s the big deal? It’s just the Lord’s Supper. A piece of cracker and a sip of juice—barely a crumb and hardly a swallow!” My response? If you wouldn’t leave your church over a failure to rightly observe the Lord’s Table, you don’t quite understand the essential Mark of Ordinances and the role they play in the sanctification of the church.

My View of the Ordinances

The doctrinal statement of Dallas Theological Seminary, where I teach church history and systematic theology, says this: “We believe that water baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the only sacraments and ordinances of the church and that they are a Scriptural means of testimony for the church in this age. (Matt. 28:19; Luke 22:19-20; Acts 10:47-48; 16:32-33; 18:7-8; 1 Cor. 11:26).” This brief statement on the essential Mark of Ordinances is striking in what it doesn’t say. It favors neither infant nor believer’s baptism and allows for immersion, pouring, or sprinkling. It permits the Lord’s Supper to be observed weekly, monthly, or annually. In short, besides affirming the enduring quality of the sacraments for the church, this statement allows for a number of diverse beliefs and practices regarding baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

But in light of Scripture and the early church, what more can we say about these essential Ordinances of the church?

Yes, Baptism Now Saves You!

It is undisputed that the New Testament closely relates believing, baptism, and salvation (Mark 16:16; Acts 18:8). As such, water baptism is often associated with receiving the Word, repentance, forgiveness, washing away sins, calling on Christ, and receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:37–41; 22:16). Indeed, it vividly pictures a cleansed life freed from the debilitating stain of sin (Romans 6:3–4). However, before we jump to the mistaken conclusion that the rite of water baptism itself saves, forgives, or literally washes away sins, we must note that water baptism and baptism by the Holy Spirit are clearly distinguished (Acts 1:4–5). In fact, in some cases water baptism precedes baptism by the Spirit (Acts 8:14–16). In other cases Spirit baptism—received by simple faith—precedes water baptism (Acts 10:44–48).

How do we reconcile the Bible’s close connection—but clear distinction—between water baptism (the outward sign) and Spirit baptism (the inward reality)? First Peter 3:21 helps. Peter wrote that “baptism now saves you,” immediately clarifying the kind of rite he had in mind—“not a cleansing of dirt from the flesh [the physical act itself] but a pledge to God from a good conscience.” That is, the rite of water baptism is the public pledge or confession that marks a conscience already cleansed by the Holy Spirit (see Hebrews 9:14; 10:22). Thus, the ceremony of baptism must be closely associated with our conversion to Christ by grace through faith alone—but it should never be equated with it. I think the Westminster Confession of Faith presents a good biblical balance with regard to the association (but not equation) of baptism and conversion: “Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated” (28:5).

In short, water baptism was the exclusive response of faith to the preaching of the Gospel. Though baptism is rightly viewed as an outward sign of an inward reality, the early church would not officially recognize inward faith apart from the outward sign. Just as a public wedding initiates a man and woman into the life of marriage, public baptism initiates a believer into the visible community of Christians. As such, biblical baptism must always precede church membership, discipleship, leadership, and observance of the Lord’s Supper. I believe we deviate from the teachings of Scripture and the practice of the early church if we severely divorce saving conversion from the seal of baptism.

Yes, Christ Is Present in the Eucharist!

The ancient term “eucharist”—already used by Christians for the Lord’s Supper in the first century—comes from the Greek word, eucharistia, which simply means “thanksgiving” (see the first century historical document, Didache 9). In the apostolic age, it referred not simply to the broken bread or the poured wine, but to the observance itself—the celebration, the commemoration, the participation as a community. “Eucharist” at the time of the apostles primarily meant the prayer, confession, and fellowship that centered on re-proclaiming Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection—the Gospel. It included our response of reflection, repentance, reconciliation, and renewal in light of our mark of baptism and our ongoing fellowship with God and with one another.

But what do we mean by the “presence” of Christ in our observance of the Lord’s Supper? Well, here’s what I don’t mean—I don’t mean Christ has magically merged with the bread and wine. I don’t mean His spirit has left His body and descended from heaven and attached itself with the wafer and the juice. Nor am I particularly fond of all of the ancient and modern attempts at explaining how Christ is present in the Eucharist—transubstantiation, consubstantiation, real spiritual presence, and so forth. In my opinion all of these views miss the profundity of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper and reduce this Ordinance to a thing.

What I do mean by Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is that in our right observance of the Lord’s Supper He has made good on His promise that “where two or more have gathered together” in His name—that is, according to His will, by His standards, centered on Him—then He is there, in their midst (Matthew 18:20). As we properly partake of the sacred meal He ordained, Christ graces us with His mysterious real presence by means of the Holy Spirit. Simply put, Christ doesn’t simply pass into the morsels; He is truly present at the meal. He’s not simply uniting with the food, but inviting us to fellowship. Furthermore, in a real, physical sense, Christ is present through the gathered Body of Christ, the Church, as it joins together in unity and submission to its Head. This mystical union of Christ with His Church means that where the community is present, so is Christ (see Acts 9:4–5; Rom 12:5; 1 Cor 10:16; 12:12–14; Eph 4:12–13; 5:23).

What, practically, does it mean to you and me that Christ is uniquely present in the proper observance of the Lord’s Supper? Well, think about it this way—when we pray that God will be “with” somebody, we’re actually praying for real, tangible effects, that is, for God to do something. In fact, where God is present, God is active. When we think of Christ’s presence in the observance of the Lord’s Supper, we should worry less about how He is or isn’t lingering in the bread and wine, but what He’s doing in the midst of the people. God has chosen to work through the Lord’s Supper in a way that He works in no other church practice.

One effect of Christ’s active presence is the unity and purity that result from self-examination, proclamation, and participation. In this sense, the Lord’s Supper is a means of sanctification. God has chosen to bring about sanctification of the whole church through the Lord’s Supper in a way that no other individual or corporate discipline can. When we properly observe the Ordinance, we will grow together spiritually as a family of God. However, there’s another side of his promise of participation in the “cup of blessing” (1 Cor 10:16). Failure to partake properly brings judgment in the form of weakness, sickness, and even death (1 Cor 11:29–30)!

Three Needed Responses

First, many independent Bible Church traditions have over-reacted to the Roman Catholic dogma that understands baptism and the eucharist as means of salvation rather than as means God uses in His work of sanctification. As a result, we have spent much of our time emphasizing what baptism and the Lord’s Supper don’t do, all the while neglecting the biblical teaching on what the Ordinances do. It’s time we move on from telling what baptism and the Lord’s Supper aren’t and get back to explaining what they are. We need to return to the biblical centrality of baptism as the ceremony of initiation into the community of faith . . . and the Lord’s Supper as the celebration of continued fellowship. We need to recall the indispensable role these Ordinances play in our spiritual growth as individuals and a church. There’s a reason the early church celebrated the Lord’s Supper weekly: it’s as important to spiritual growth as the apostles’ teaching and prayer (Acts 2:42)!

Second, if you or your children are unbaptized believers, what’s keeping you from taking that initial step of baptism as the public act of initiation and commitment to the Christian community? As you arrange for this act of obedience to Christ, let me urge you to follow the biblical order of the Ordinances, holding off on participation in the Lord’s Supper until you’ve been baptized. This isn’t a light matter. Proper order is a vital part of proper observance. Just as a wedding ceremony frees a man and woman to participate in the intimate act of marriage, baptism publicly confirms a believer’s devotion to Christ, allowing the believer to participate in the intimate fellowship of the Lord’s Supper. From the biblical perspective, participation in the Lord’s Supper without baptism is like shacking up before the wedding!

Finally, if you harbor unresolved conflict with a fellow member of the church or hide unrepentant sin, stop participating in the Lord’s Supper. On the authority of the Bible, if you don’t repent you will become weak, sick, and die. And as long as we as a church continue to practice the Lord’s Supper tolerating unrepentant members, the entire body will continue to suffer as it fails to experience the full blessing that comes from the presence of Christ in the right observance of the Ordinances.

Beyond the Preference-Driven Church: Revisiting the Marks and Works of the Church, Part 3—ORDER

Posted on by

In the first article of this series, I outlined a schematic of a local church, without which a church is driven not by biblical Marks (Orthodoxy, Order, Ordinances) and Works (Evangelism, Edification, Exultation), but by cultural forms and pragmatic functions—i.e., personal or community preferences. In the previous article I focused in on the fundamental Mark of Orthodoxy, suggesting that we must be clear in what orthodoxy 1) includes (fundamentals of the faith), excludes (heretical false teachings), and allows (diversity of views on non-essentials). In this article I will explore the second vital Mark of a local church: Order, or the relationship between church leadership and the congregation.

From Orthodoxy to Order

The primary responsibility of church leadership is to safeguard the essential Marks and Works of the church, especially the foundational Mark of Orthodoxy. Paul sought to prevent the danger of heresy when he told Timothy, the pastor in Ephesus, “The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Timothy 2:2). Paul earlier described the leadership in Ephesus as apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, who were uniquely responsible “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:11–12). Though the offices of apostles and prophets ceased in the first century, the other offices of evangelists, pastors, and teachers were to endure until the church arrives at unity, maturity, and doctrinal stability (4:13–14)—that is, in every generation since the first century. So, the idea of gifted leaders doing the local church work of proclamation (evangelists), shepherding (pastors), and instruction (teachers) is not a man-made concept. The Holy Spirit called such men to specially-ordained offices of the church for the purpose of protecting and promoting orthodox belief and practice. And Paul’s instruction in 2 Timothy 2:2 indicates that the offices were to have a permanent quality.

In fact, Clement—a contemporary of the apostles and later the pastor of Rome around A.D. 96—recalled the establishment of this order by the apostles that remained in his own day: “The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God. Having therefore received their orders . . . . they [the apostles] appointed the first-fruits of their labors, having first proved them by the Spirit, to be overseers and deacons of those who should afterwards believe” (1 Clement 42:3–4). Later Clement wrote, “Our apostles also knew . . . that there would be strife on account of the office of the overseer. For this reason . . . they appointed those ministers already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry” (1 Clement 44:1–2). Just a few years later (A.D. 110), the aged pastor of Antioch and personal acquaintance of the apostles said of the ordained pastor, elders, and deacons in a local congregation: “Apart from these, there is no church” (Ignatius, Trallians 3.1). This is what we mean by the essential Mark of Order—that leadership established by the apostles intended to continue on to our own day.

Church Leadership

Through the apostles God has established an order of leaders to shepherd, train, and exhort believers. Around A.D. 58, the apostle Paul made a brief stop in Miletus where “he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church” (Acts 20:17). There he gave that specific group of officials the following charge: “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). From Acts 20 we see the convergence of three key terms that identity the same body of leadership: presbyeroi (elders), episkopoi (overseers), and poimaino (to pastor or shepherd). At this early stage in the development of local church order, “elders” and “overseers” were interchangeable terms, and these officers of the church were responsible for pastoral leadership. When we read in Ephesians 4 of those men given to the church as “evangelists,” “pastors,” and “teachers,” Paul was referring to the elders of that church. About five years later the apostle Peter also used the same united trio of titles—elders-overeers-pastors—indicating that these various responsibilities rested within the same group of leaders in the churches (1 Peter 5:1–2).

As this apostolic order matured, a presiding elder, known as the “overseer” emerged as the prime among equals. Timothy and Titus were early representatives of this office, as were the “messengers” (angelos) of the seven churches mentioned in Revelation 2–3. It’s also possible that the “evangelists” (euangelistes) of Ephesians 4:11 identified this office in the local church. Equivalent to our modern day “senior pastor,” he was to lead the counsel of elders, who themselves were responsible for the preaching, teaching, and pastoring ministries of the church. So, in the biblical and early church order, all pastors were elders, and there were no elders who were not ordained, gifted, trained, and qualified men who were actively engaged in the pastoral and teaching work of the church.

Working under the authority of the ordained elders (preachers, pastors, and teachers), the deacons assisted in the work of the ministry (Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:8–13). These leaders were responsible for more than merely temporal affairs of the church. They ministered as junior leaders in whatever capacity was necessary, including the administration of the ordinances under the authority of the elders.

Neither Anarchy nor Democracy

The Bible’s description—read in light of the actual situation in the ancient church—presents a clear picture of the apostles’ established church order. The official ordained group of “pastors-overseers-elders” were in charge of teaching, preaching, shepherding (1 Timothy 5:17; Titus 1:9; James 5:14; 1 Peter 5:1–2). Some—but not all—elders were paid (1 Timothy 5:17). But all of the pastors were elders. There is no biblical or historical justification for separating elders and pastors.

The biblical church order makes it clear that the church is not an anarchy, an assembly without clearly-defined leadership. In fact, God never established any secular or sacred institution that lacked clear order. From human government (Romans 13:1) to the family (Ephesians 5:22) . . . from Israel (Exodus 22:28) to the church (Titus 1:5)—God’s institutions reflects order. Even within Triune equality, God the Father functions as the head, sending the Son and the Spirit into the world (John 14:16–17; Galatians 4:4, 6; 1 Corinthians 11:3). A groups of Christians without ordained leadership is not a church.

Neither is the church a democracy, in which final authority over the shepherds is distributed among the flock. I’m reminded of the Latin words engraved above the House Chamber of the Minnesota capitol: VOX POPULI, VOX DEI—“The Voice of the People is the Voice of God.” Unfortunately, many Christians believe this is how God leads the church—by majority rule. But not if the Bible has the final say! God intends that the local church have ordained leadership. The elders—a term synonymous with pastors and overseers—were to be the leaders of the church, to shepherd the flock as servant-leaders, yes, but as leaders nonetheless.

Some of you may be thinking, “Doesn’t this kind of elder authority rest decision-making in a select few—the pastors and teachers of the church?” Yes. This is the counter-cultural teaching of Scripture. To be sure, the covenanted members are to be involved in ministry as the Lord gifted each one (see 1 Cor 12—14; Eph 4). However, their primary relationship to the appointed elders was to submit without grumbling or complaining.

Now that’s a word Americans hate: submit. In a nation birthed in rebellion, the suggestion of submission to our human leaders sends chills up our spines. Yet Scripture is clear. The congregation was to pray for, support, and follow the leadership of the ordained pastors (Hebrews 13:7, 17). When we read the Bible in its historical context, letting it say what it says (and not what we want it to say!), then there’s nothing ambiguous, nuanced, or complex about this. Submit. Obey.

Anticipating objections, though, the writer of Hebrews adds the fact that elders will “give account for their work” to God. We often forget that since God is sovereign and Christ is the head of the Church, every elder is under the headship of God and Christ. Instead, we think they are under our headship and try to turn God’s order upside down. We treat elders like our representatives, as if they were supposed to be moved and molded by the whims of the masses or champion the agendas of their “constituents” (again, Vox Populi rears its ugly head).

In other words, both the ordained elders (pastors and teachers) and the covenanted members (congregation) each have their biblical roles and responsibilities. Leaders shouldn’t abdicate . . . and members shouldn’t usurp. Leaders should pastor . . . and members should submit. Only when we align ourselves closer to the biblical Mark of Order—and not our own personal opinions—can we move beyond the preference-driven church.

Beyond the Preference-Driven Church: Revisiting the Marks and Works of the Church, Part 2—ORTHODOXY

Posted on by

In the first article of this series, I proposed a simple schematic illustrating the essential Marks and Works of a church. These essential Marks include Orthodoxy, Order, and Ordinances. And the vital Works include Evangelism, Edification, and Exultation. In this second article of the series I focus on the fundamental Mark of Orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy Revisited

What comes to mind when you hear the word orthodox? For some it conjures up icons, incense, altars, and priests rattling off ancient liturgies in Greek or Russian. Others might associate the term orthodox with their own personal doctrines. That is, their beliefs are orthodox, so everything else is heresy.

Actually, orthodox is a Greek word meaning “correct opinion.” As such, orthodox believers have always held to the essential, unchanging truths of the Christian faith—the “things” Paul instructed Timothy to “entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Timothy 2:2). These unchanging essential truths, expressed in different language throughout history, were originally summarized in brief hymns or creedal statements that appear in the Bible (see John 1; Romans 1:1–4; 1 Corinthians 15:1–5; Philippians 2:5–11; Colossians 1:15–18; 1 Timothy 3:16). Later this same set of essential truths, usually summarized in confessional statements like the Apostles’ Creed, formed the basis for early Christian discipleship—especially preparation for baptism and admittance into the church (as is likely the case for the “elementary principles” described in Hebrews 5:12–6:5).

From an Evangelical Protestant perspective, these essential truths include, inter alia: (1) the doctrine of the Trinity—one God in three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; (2) the incarnation, virgin birth; atoning death, resurrection, ascension, and future return of Christ; (3) the creation, fall, and depravity of humanity; (4) salvation by grace through faith; and (5) the inspiration and authority of Holy Scripture. To err in matters of orthodoxy has always meant to err in matters that form the very heart and life of the Christian faith. For most of these issues, eternal life is at stake. For all of them, spiritual health is on the line. So heresy, the opposite of orthodoxy, is “damnable doctrine”—opinions held by false Christians.

Beyond these essential truths, various churches and denominations may have their own theological and doctrinal “preferences.” That is, their unique identities as churches or denominations are often driven by their preferences regarding everything from angels to end-times . . . from church governance to spiritual gifts. Now, there’s nothing wrong with having and teaching “distinctives.” But if a tradition allows its distinctives to invade the inner sanctuary of orthodoxy, then the Mark of Orthodoxy is actually weakened, not strengthened.

Catholicity Reclaimed

When I was in grade school, our teacher explained that most people in America were Christians. Then she polled the class: “How many of you consider yourselves to be Christians?”

All the students raised their hands . . . except one girl. She looked nervously around the room, spotted one of her friends raising her hand, and shouted, “Hey, Tina, put your hand down! We’re not Christians, we’re Catholics!”

For most Evangelicals the word “catholic” brings to mind Popes, statues, rosaries, and the Spanish Inquisition. But the term catholic actually comes from a Greek word meaning “universal” or “general” as opposed to local and particular. Ignatius of Antioch, around A.D. 110, was the first to use this term in reference to orthodox Christian churches. In order to strengthen the Mark of Orthodoxy and prevent heresy, Ignatius instructed the local church in Smyrna to trust the teachings of their bishop (or “head pastor”), Polycarp, who had been a personal student of the apostle John. Ignatius wrote, “Wherever the bishop appears, there let the congregation be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church” (Ignatius, Smyrnaeans 8.2). In this original context catholic refers to the body of Christ throughout the world under the headship of Jesus Christ (not the Pope!), just as the local church in Smyrna was under the headship of their bishop, Polycarp. (I’ll address the issue of pastors, elders, bishops, deacons, and members next time when I focus on the Mark of church Order.)

Are You an Orthodox Catholic Evangelical?

Properly understood, Evangelical Christians must be orthodox. And if they are orthodox in their beliefs and practices, they are part true catholic Christianity of ages past and places present. Being orthodox and catholic means that we’re united on the essential truths that Christians have believed from the beginning. Individual churches may be “separated” by language, culture, geography, distinct traditions, and organizational preferences. But all churches that center on the ancient and enduring orthodox beliefs that have always been the warp and woof of the Christian faith are truly and properly catholic. Whether Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, Independent Bible, or something else, Evangelical churches share this common Mark of Orthodoxy with each other.

But here comes the warning. Sometimes our own preference-driven distinctives can be so emphasized that we lose sight of the foundational Mark of Orthodoxy. We can easily fall into the error of thinking everything we believe is fundamental, essential, and of utmost importance. And then the truly orthodox doctrines are merely assumed . . . then neglected . . . then forgotten . . . and eventually lost. In response to this preference-driven mentality, we need to reassert the Evangelical Mark of Orthodoxy. It’s not enough to bury the essential truths in a lengthy doctrinal statement at the same level as the origin of angels and the order of the end-times. More than anything else in our postmodern, post-Christian culture, Evangelical churches must clearly, unambiguously, and intentionally identify themselves with the biblical and theological core of the ancient Christian faith.

An official statement of essential truths that focuses attention on the Mark of Orthodoxy would be a good place to start. And, like the apostolic and ancient church, actually reaffirming these orthodox essentials for membership, baptism, discipleship, and discipline would be a proper function of these truths. Also, keeping our own personal theological distinctives out of that ancient and unchanging center would go a long way to promote humility and unity. Only when we restore the essential Mark of Orthodoxy to its proper place of centrality—not merely in our doctrinal statements, but also in our teaching—can we move beyond the problem of the preference-driven church.

Beyond the Preference-Driven Church: Revisiting the Marks and Works of the Church, Part 1

Posted on by

We’re seeped in a culture where preference rules. As a result, many American Evangelicals treat church like malleable clay to be molded and shaped into whatever form they think it should be. Our expectations for what a church is and what a church does too often reflect our personal preferences. We may prefer contemporary music or traditional hymns . . . dynamic youth activities or deep discipleship . . . personable pastors or powerful preachers . . . state-of-the-art facilities or stunning sanctuaries. But do these preference-driven churches really reflect the biblical marks and works of a church?

The solution to a preference-driven church mentality isn’t to compose a new “me-centered” wish list, but to identify and adopt God’s essential marks and works for an authentic and healthy church. When we do this we’ll be equipped to focus on our church’s central strengths and address inevitable weaknesses, establishing reliable criteria for recovering a lost identity. But first we need to remind ourselves of the fundamental marks and works of the church. And to do this, we need to have a bit of historical perspective.

During the sixteenth century Reformation, Protestant leaders like Luther and Calvin sought to define what it meant for a congregation to be counted as an authentic Christian Church. They knew they couldn’t define themselves by medieval Roman Catholic standards under the Pope with his seven saving sacraments and rigid rituals. But amidst a growing diversity of Protestant practices, what could they identify as the essential marks of a true church? The Lutheran Augsburg Confession put it this way: “The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments rightly administered” (Article 7). Later the Westminster Confession expressed a united Protestant perspective on what it meant to be truly “catholic” in the Protestant (not Roman Catholic) sense: “This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them” (Article 15.4).

Of course, we aren’t bound by the original Protestant confessions, but as the Evangelical heirs of that great Reformation tradition, we should be just as careful as they were about answering the question, “What makes a congregation of believers a true and faithful church of Jesus Christ?” I find it helpful to think in terms of essential “Marks” and “Works” of a true church, incorporating biblical and historical emphases that have stood the test of time. In the remainder of this article, I want to briefly summarize these Marks and Works illustrated in the diagram. In later articles I will further develop each of these with concrete, practical suggestions on how they can be reinforced today. Though my terms are different, these Marks and Works fit the classic early church and Reformation “marks of the church.”

The pillar of essential Marks includes Orthodoxy, Order, and Ordinances. Orthodox believers are those who hold to the essential truths of the Christian faith—those fundamentals of the faith that have been believed everywhere, always, and by all. It corresponds with the Protestant emphasis on the “Word of God purely preached and heard” (1 Tim 3:14–15; 2 Tim 1:13–14; 3:13–4:5). Order emphasizes the necessity of trained, trusted, and tested pastors, teachers, and shepherds of the church, to whom the orthodox faith has been entrusted to pass on to the next generation (Eph 4:11–12; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Tim 3:1–13; Titus 1:5–9; Heb 13:17; 1 Pet 5:1–3). And the term Ordinances refers to the sacraments of the church, including baptism and the Lord’s Supper as closely associated with discipline and purity of the church’s members (Matt 28:18; 1 Cor 11:23–26; 1 Pet 3:21–22).

The pillar of essential Works includes Evangelism, Edification, and Exultation. Evangelism is primarily world-focused, emphasizing local and global missions. It includes invitation and initiation into the church through the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in the person and work of Christ (Matt 28:18; Luke 24:46–49; John 20:30–31; Acts 1:8; Eph 2:8–9). Edification describes the church’s role of building up believers in love and good works through the participation of its various members in their Spirit-gifted ministries, resulting in unity and maturity (Matt 28:19–20; Rom 12:4–8; 1 Cor 3:10–17; Eph 2:19–22; 4:11–13; Heb 5:12–14; 10:23–25). Finally, Exultation refers to the purpose, goal, and focus of the church—to glorify God the Father, through the Son, and by the power of the Spirit. The church must exult God through corporate worship and prayer as well as by a God-glorifying presence in the world (Matt 5:16; 25:34–40; Rom 11:33–12:2; Gal 1:3–5; 1 Pet 4:8–11).

If a local church is not consciously employed in the business of continually revisiting and strengthening the pillars of essential Marks and Works of the church, eventually these will erode, crack, and crumble. And it doesn’t take a structural engineer to predict what will happen to the structure when its foundational piers collapse! Personal preference and me-centered pragmatism can not determine what the church should be or what it should be doing. Only a careful reflection on the defining Marks and Works of a healthy church can keep us focused on what God wants us to be and do in the twenty-first century.

(To be continued…)

A Case for RetroChristianity

Posted on by

Naming an idea can be risky. The newly-named “idea” takes on a life of its own and can then be accepted, rejected, modified, ignored, loved, or despised. Nevertheless, I’ve decided to finally name that cluster of ideas that has been gestating for some years now—about fifteen, to be precise. I actually think the child was born a few years ago, but he’s been awaiting an identity—something that will distinguish him from his look-alike siblings that came before him. So, the name I’ve given my course of thinking is RetroChristianity. I will explain exactly what this means and why I chose this particular name in due time. But to do this successfully, I first need to name and describe a few other concepts in contemporary Christian thinking. These terms include “Orthodoxy,” “Heterodoxy,” and “Heresy.” To these common labels I want to add two more: “Metrodoxy” and “Petridoxy.”

By “Orthodoxy” I signify the correct view on the central truths of the Christian faith and a proper practice of Christian works. As a rule of thumb, orthodoxy is that which has been believed and practiced everywhere, always, and by all. The “all” includes those who people who intend to be counted among orthodox Christians and who have generally been regarded as such by other orthodox Christians. Orthodoxy means holding the right opinion about crucial Christian truths and acts in keeping with what Christianity has always believed about these things. Some things that fit this general criteria are: 1) God created all things out of nothing; 2) God is Triune: one divine essence in three Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; 3) The eternal Son of God became incarnate through the Virgin Mary and was born Jesus Christ, fully God and fully human, two distinct natures in one unique Person; 4) Jesus Christ died to pay for our sins, rose from the dead victorious, and ascended into heaven, waiting to return from heaven to earth to act as Judge and King; 5) The Holy Spirit moved the prophets and apostles to compose the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the inspired, unerring norm for the Christian faith; 6) The Church is Christ’s body of redeemed, baptized saints who by faith partake of the life and communion with God through Jesus Christ in the new community of the Spirit. Some universal practices have included baptism as the rite of initiation, the Lord’s Supper (or communion, or eucharist) as the rite of continued fellowship, evangelism, missions, charity, worship, and Bible teaching. Many other things have been taught and practiced everywhere, always, and by all, but this sample list indicates the kind of central, crucial doctrines that mark one as “orthodox.”

Now this all sounds simpler than it actually is. Sometimes it requires a little bit of squinting in order to overlook minor blemishes on an otherwise hopeful history of orthodoxy. The reality is that without constant check-ups and regular cleaning, orthodoxy is subject to “truth decay.” This can happen to individuals, to churches, to vast communities, to entire generations. But don’t despair! One of the main functions of the Spirit of Truth is to guide the church into truth, to restore her to orthodoxy when she veers too far, and to breathe into her renewed vitality. The history of the church is filled with these revival movements that retrieve forgotten aspects of orthodoxy. So orthodoxy can never be taken for granted. It must be constantly re-received and re-taught. It is not passed down from one generation to another in the form of a creed or confession if that creed or confession is not faithfully and intentionally taught. Orthodoxy is not bestowed upon the next generation through the Bible if the Bible is not read and explained within the context of classic orthodoxy. There’s no such thing as orthodoxy by osmosis or trickle-down orthodoxy. It must be intentionally and clearly taught everywhere, at all times, and to all.

Moving on, I use the term “Heterodoxy” to mean, literally, “another opinion.” Heterodox teachings tend toward the margins of the received doctrines of the faith. And they sometimes teeter at the very edge. They still want to be part of the Christian tradition and still acknowledge the central Christian truths, but they also want to be unique, innovative, and clever in their theology and practice. They feel comfortable recasting traditional truths in nontraditional language. They sometimes want to rearrange, reinvent, reinvigorate, and reformulate the things that had been handed down to them. They like to surf the waves of the margins, buck the system, go against the grain—all within the community of orthodoxy. However, heterodoxy often results in an unintentional distancing from the normative center of Christian orthodoxy . . . and with a little push heterodox teachers run the risk of breaking free from orthodoxy’s gravitational pull and winding up in the bleak void of heresy. Heterodoxy is also often characterized by exaggerating a minor distinctive and trying to jam it into the center of orthodoxy. When a unique aspect of a person’s theology becomes the focal point, the true center of orthodoxy becomes marginalized and minimized. Thus, heterodoxy develops because of a failure to keep the primary orthodox truths front and center. Division, dissension, and destruction often ensue. Heterodoxy is cured by intentionally and clearly teaching orthodoxy everywhere, at all times, and to all.

I use the term “Heresy” to describe doctrine that challenges and destroys the central core of orthodoxy. As such, heresy alone is damnable doctrine. It often finds its origins as a radical heterodoxy, but not all heterodoxy ends up in denying basic fundamentals of the Christian faith. Heresy differs from heterodoxy in that the heretic knowingly (not ignorantly), willfully (not accidentally), and persistently (not momentarily) denies a key tenet of historic orthodox Christianity. He or she rejects certain truths that have been believed everywhere, always, and by all. For example, somebody who denies the full deity and humanity of Christ is a heretic. The belief that Jesus of Nazareth did not literally rise from the dead is heretical. And the view that the Holy Spirit is a created being and not a fully divine person is heresy. Heresy is defeated by intentionally and clearly teaching orthodoxy everywhere, at all times, and to all.

Orthodoxy. Heterodoxy. Heresy. I think these categories are clear. Now, floating among Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy I see two tendencies, especially in free church evangelicalism. I call these tendencies “Metrodoxy” and “Petridoxy.”

“Metrodoxy” is a term I coined to describe trendy, faddish, and “cool” doctrines and practices that tend to take over contemporary churches, especially “megachurches” and megachurch wannabes. If you want your church to have greater cultural “impact,” to draw media attention, and to place itself on the map of evangelical Christianity, you must accept and live by metrodox values. These include relationship, not religion . . . contemporary, not conventional . . . relevance, not ritual . . . innovative, not obsolete . . . fresh, not stale. Metrodoxy thrives in metropolitan areas, drawing from a pool of young, energetic men and women who have excess time and money. This group is often impressed by a clever lingo, advanced technology, and trendy buzz. Anything perceived as boring, belabored, or bogged down gets snuffed. But amidst the excitement, metrodox churches tend to be in a constant state of identity crisis, needing to reinvent or re-brand themselves every few years. After a few phoenix-like rebirths, these churches eventually find themselves adrift, unsure of what they’re supposed to be doing or why. Of course, we find all sorts of ready captains prepared to take over and steer the ship toward some new and trendy port . . . but these navigators are usually not going back to classic orthodox beliefs and practices as their guides to lead them on. The result of this constant identity crisis is often a failure to identify and pass on what has been believed and practiced everywhere, always, and by all. So, extreme metrodoxy can be treated by intentionally and clearly teaching orthodoxy everywhere, at all times, and to all.

On the other extreme we find what I call “Petridoxy.” If the metrodox are too progressive and trendy, the petridox are frozen in time, unable and unwilling to change. They have been petrified. They tend to fear change as a great evil, not realizing that their own practices were themselves once quite new (and likely controversial). They often have a very myopic perspective on their own history, believing their way has stood the test of time. They have no desire to critically examine their narrow perception of so-called “orthodoxy” or to evaluate whether what they’re doing actually does help to preserve and promote central orthodox beliefs and practices. Petridox churches would just as soon die a slow and painful death than make major adjustments. Having lost sight of the fundamental goal of receiving, preserving, and passing on the faith once for all entrusted to the saints, petridoxy settles on one method of receiving, one manner of preserving, and one means of passing on the faith . . . and then it congeals in that particular form. Petridoxy therefore tends to be primitivistic, reactionary, ultra-conservative, and idealistically nostalgic. However, petridoxy can be softened by refocusing attention on the purpose of the church’s forms and structures: to intentionally and clearly teach orthodoxy everywhere, at all times, and to all.

With this background on concepts of orthodoxy, heterodoxy, heresy, metrodoxy, and petridoxy, I’m ready to explain the concept of “RetroChristianity.” The prefix “retro” means “involving, relating to, or reminiscent of things past.” But in contemporary compound words, it indicates an attempt to bring the things of the past into the present, giving both the past and the present a new life.

First let me make it perfectly clear that RetroChristianity is not fundamentalism redivivus, a retreat back to Papal Rome, a pilgrimage to Eastern Orthodoxy, or a veiled attempt to promote a flaccid ecumenical faith. Rather it’s an honest attempt to more carefully navigate our received orthodox faith and practice through the precarious channel between metrodoxy and petridoxy, both of which can shipwreck the faith. Therefore, RetroChristianity wants to bridge the gap between the ancient and contemporary church without going to two extremes: 1) idealizing the ancient and condemning the modern, or 2) eschewing the ancient and seizing the contemporary. RetroChristianity has some things in common with the many “ancient-future” movements, while acknowledging that many forms of that trend can easily slip into just a new identity for metrodox churches . . . or drive headlong into the rocks of an out-of-touch primitivistic petridoxy. RetroChristianity tries to address the real practical questions of “how” we can intentionally and clearly teach orthodoxy everywhere, at all times, and to all. It also draws much of its inspiration from the concept of paleo-orthodoxy and thus explores the foundational work of the patristic period. But it also seeks to move, in concrete practical steps, from that pre-modern, pre-Christian cultural context to our post-modern, post-Christian context.

Ultimately RetroChristianity means carrying on a constant dialogue with the past, but it also requires an actual practical connection with the present and an orientation toward the future. Therefore, it asks how we can and ought to teach and practice orthodoxy everywhere (that is, in every kind of church and ministry around the world), always (in every ministry opportunity, outreach, or service), and to all (young and old, rich and poor, educated and uneducated, men and women). RetroChristianity demands that the past first be reckoned with on its own terms. It can not settle for picking over the past for relevant bits and pieces that will make us feel more “connected” to our roots. It can’t stand for politely consulting the ancient Christians to make us look sophisticated. And it can’t naively transplant the past into the present as if the preceding centuries of development never happened. As such, the dialogue is a complex, time-consuming, strenuous work that requires the input of many. This includes patristic, medieval, and reformation scholars; pastors, teachers, and laypeople; denominational and free churches, and numerous others interested in genuinely engaging in either real transformation . . . or unashamed preservation.