Tag: church

We Need Sanctifying Churches!

If the doctrine of justification is the article upon which the Church stands or falls, then sanctification may be the doctrine which adorns her with beauty or leaves her standing naked and shameful.

The Church of Jesus Christ (all those who truly love and trust Christ) is His bride, adorned with His own righteousness and set apart for His intimate affection and care.  This truth is the comfort of all who understand themselves to be included in the household of God.  Yet, Christ does not merely call the prostituting adulterous bride to wear new labels (such as justified and sanctified), He also calls her to live accordingly (Eph 4:1; 1 Thess 2:12).

Living in light of her new status, the Church of Jesus Christ is declared to be holy, and Christ is making her holy by the washing of His word “so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor” (Eph 5:25-27).  This loving reconciliation and renewal is challenged by the fact that the visible Church (the multitude of professing Christians) is made up of believers who are still desirous of sin.

Herein lies the difficulty of understanding just how the visible Church may be clothed with righteousness as she stands justified before the watching world:

A visible Church, full of sinful-but-sanctified believers, arrayed in magnificence and clothed in righteousness for all the world to see, is exactly what God has intended the Church do be.

Before diving too deeply into the doctrine of sanctification, it may prove beneficial to establish the foundation for the believer’s justification.  Horatius Bonar, speaking of Christ’s righteousness with eloquence, wrote,

“In another’s righteousness we [Christians] stand; and by another’s righteousness are we justified.”  This truth, he went on to say, makes plain that “all accusations against us, founded upon our right unrighteousness, [may be] answered by pointing to the perfection of the righteousness which covers us from head to foot… as well as shields us from wrath.”[1]

Justification happens in an instant.  It is the doing of God Himself when the sinner is made alive in Christ Jesus and counted good, holy, and righteous in God’s sight (Eph 2:4-9; Titus 3:7; Rom 5:9).  Furthermore, sanctification is also an instantaneous declaration and positional reality for all who are in the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:11).

Sinclair Ferguson, writing on those doctrines that undergird the Christian life, says,

“it would be a distortion to present the New Testament teaching on sanctification only as a long, hard struggle for victory over sin as though few Christians ever lived the life of faith with any degree of success.”[2]

He goes on to point out that some New Testament passages can be understood only if sanctification is perceived to be a past experience (Acts 20:32; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Pet 1:2).  In addition, the Christian union with Christ includes a significant change in relation to sin, particularly that the Christian is now ‘dead to’ or released from the power of sin (Col 2:20-3:14; Gal 2:20; Rom 6:1-14).

In the confessional statement known as the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689, sanctification is one of many doctrinal subjects addressed.  The confession clearly conveys an understanding of sanctification as both a past and present work.

“They who are united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, are also farther sanctified, really and personally (Acts 20:32; Rom. 6:5,6), through the same virtue, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them (John 17:17; Eph. 3:16-19; 1 Thess. 5:21-23); the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed (Rom. 6:14), and the several lusts of it are more and more weakened and mortified (Gal. 5:24), and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces (Col. 1:11), to the practice of all true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 12:14).”[3]

There is a real sense in which the mortal, un-glorified Christian – as sinful as he may remain – is now sanctified and positionally holy before God.  The Christian is aroused to love for God by virtue of having been born again, and he does now love righteousness and hate sin (1 Tim 6:11).  Bonar says,

“The free, boundless love of God, pouring itself into us, expands and elevates our whole being; and we serve Him, not in order to win His favour, but because we have already won it in simply believing His record concerning His Son. If the root is holy, so are the branches. We have become connected with the holy root, and by the necessity of this connection are made holy too.”[4]

While it is true that the earthly Christian is holy, declared to be so and empowered to live as such by God Himself, the mortal Christian remains practically sinful and inclined towards sin.  He may find himself in despair when he considers how sinful he still is in spite of what he reads about his position before God as articulated in Scripture.

“If I am still as sinful as I am,” he may think to himself, “how can it be true that I am holy and just in the sight of God?”

Bonar goes on to explain how vital it is that one understands the difference between working (doing good works and living righteously) and believing (trusting in the finished work of Christ for justification).  He says one must not confound or confuse the two because doing so would “destroy them both.”[5]

Therefore, justification and sanctification are fixed realities for all those in Christ Jesus by virtue of Christ’s justifying and sanctifying person and work.  However, there is also a sense in which the believer is being sanctified by God and also contributing to such a work through the diligent use of the means of grace, which God has made available to the converted soul (2 Tim 2:22).

The London Confession of 1689, in paragraph two and three of the section on Sanctification, describes the reality that sanctification has taken place, and yet there is remaining much imperfection in the believer while in this mortal life.  Furthermore, the believer most certainly finds himself in a constant struggle – the “flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh” (Gal 5:17; 1 Pet 2:11).

In this war, the believer is assured that he will overcome (Rom. 6:14), but he may experience periods when the remaining corruption may seem to prevail (Rom. 7:23).[6]  Martin Luther noted, early in his magisterial work on the depravity of fallen humanity,

“The world and it’s god (2 Cor 4:4) cannot and will not hear the word of the true God: and the true God cannot and will not keep silence. While, therefore, these two Gods are at war with each other, what can there be else in the whole world, but tumult?”[7]

If this is what we universally find (namely tumult and war) when the true God clashes with “the god of this world,” then we should expect to find the same hostile conflict in the microcosm of the human heart when these two opponents meet.  However, the Christian may take great comfort to know that God has not left the task of sanctification in the mortal’s hands alone.  God has called the Christian to diligently pursue righteousness and good works (Matt 6:33), and God has promised that He is working within to bring about both the willing and the doing of those same things (Eph 2:10).

The London Confession is again helpful to explain:

“Their ability to do good works is not all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ (John 15:4,5); and that they may be enabled thereunto, besides the graces they have already received, there is necessary an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them and to will and to do of his good pleasure (2 Cor. 3:5; Phil. 2:13); yet they are not bound to perform any duty, unless upon a special motion of the Spirit, but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them (Phil. 2:12; Heb. 6:11,12; Isa. 64:7).”[8]

The doing of good works by every believer is commanded and enabled by God (Titus 2:7; Heb 10:24; Matt 5:16; 1 Pet 2:12; Eph 2:10).  Not only thus, but Scripture informs us that good works will provide some evidence of genuine faith and discipleship (James 2:14-26; Jn 8:31).  Good works, or righteous living, do not produce justification or sanctification, but it is clear that good works necessarily and always follow such things.

Kevin DeYoung describes the relationship, borrowing from biblical imagery, in botanic terms.

“It’s not that good works are in the root of the tree; they’re not the thing that makes the tree what it is. They’re not the ground or the basis of our standing with God. But if we truly are redeemed through the blood of Christ, if the Holy Spirit truly dwells in us, then we will be people who bear fruit in good works. Our lives will be marked by what Paul calls “the fruit of the Spirit” (Gal 5:22-23).  And if those fruits are not present in us, Jesus says, we have reason to question whether the tree was ever really healthy at all.”[9]

With more elegant style and language, Bonar explains the enabling power of God in the life of the believer by saying, “The life of the justified is a decided one.”  It is fixed and focused.  “The justifying cross has come between him and all evil things.”  The Christian has a new light in his eye.  “Even if at any time he feels as if he could return to that country from which he set out, the cross stands in front and arrests his backward step.”

The Gospel itself compels the Christian onward toward the celestial city with holiness as his aim.  “There is henceforth to be no mistake about him. His heart is no longer divided, and his eye no longer roams. He has taken up his cross, and he is following the Lamb.”[10]  With such a view of the Christian life and focus, one might imagine that there should be no sinful expressions from the thoughts, words, or deeds of any Christian.  But alas, we do find much in the way of sinful expressions in the life of every Christian we meet – including the one we meet daily in the mirror.

The explanation for such an experience in the Christian life is not exactly clear.  The Scriptures tell us that God extends varying levels of grace to individual believers (Eph 4:7; 1 Cor 12:11; Phil 2:13), but we would want to be careful not to blame God for the sinful expression of any sinner.  The Holy Spirit works in varying degrees within individual believers (Heb 2:4; 1 Cor 12:6), but again we would want to avoid accusing God the Spirit of any negligence on His part in the sanctifying work. Individual believers play an important role in how far and how fast they progress in sanctification throughout their mortal lives (Heb 10:24; 3:13; Titus 3:8), but here too we are wise to refrain from ascribing any credit to the believer for his or her progress because it is only by God’s enabling Spirit that they are sanctified.

All three of these are true, so then there must be some combination of these factors that explain the varying degrees of speed and efficiency that mark the sanctification process in different Christians.  It is clear that there will be progress in the work of sanctification in the life of every believer, and God has promised to complete the process which He has begun (Phil 1:6).

It appears that God has not only promised to work within Christians to bring about the mutually desired end of complete sanctification, but he has also instituted local communities through which Christians are to engage in diligent efforts towards sanctification together.

Here, we shall turn our attention from the personalized sanctification of the individual to the communal sanctifying properties of the local church.

The London Confession says,

“[T]he Lord Jesus Christ calls out of the world unto himself, through the ministry of his word, by his Spirit, those that are given unto him by his Father (John 10:16; John 12:32), that they may walk before him in all the ways of obedience, which he prescribes to them in his word (Matt. 28:20). Those thus called, he commands to walk together in particular societies, or churches, for their mutual edification, and the due performance of that public worship, which he requires of them in the world (Matt. 18:15-20).”[11]

Therefore, these societies or communities of faith are designed for mutual improvement, building up, or sanctification (Eph 2:19-20).  Paragraph 12 of that same confession, in the section on The Church, goes on to explain that there are privileges, censures, and authoritative instruments that the Christian may enjoy in the life of a Gospel-centered community.

Rather than these communities being an end in themselves or even a rule unto themselves, they are local and communal expressions of mutual submission to the Christ who reigns over all.  Andrew Purvis expounds this view by saying,

“The ministry of the church is, by the Holy Spirit, a sharing in God’s ministry to and for us in, through, and as Jesus Christ.  The task at hand, then, is to focus on the profound interrelationship that must obtain between… those truths and realities about God that the church brings to expression through Christian doctrine… and pastoral care.”[12]

Pastoral care, the shepherding of God’s sheep and caring for Christ’s bride, is the task of “sharing in God’s ministry to and for” Christians.  The church is meant to be a local expression of “truths and realities about God,” which we find clearly revealed in the Scriptures and understand as Christian doctrine.

In less lofty terms, but just as potent, Mark Dever says that a local church is “a community of believers who have become part of the New Covenant in Christ’s blood and, as a result, have covenanted together to help each other run the Christian race with integrity, godliness, and grace.”[13]  The London Confession also has this view of a local church and its membership.

“The members of these churches are saints by calling, visibly manifesting and evidencing (in and by their profession and walking) their obedience unto that call of Christ (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2); and do willingly consent to walk together, according to the appointment of Christ; giving up themselves to the Lord, and one to another, by the will of God, in professed subjection to the ordinances of the Gospel (Acts 2:41,42, 5:13,14; 2 Cor. 9:13).”[14]

Church membership, then, is a collective affirmation that Christians in local proximity to one another are attempting to live out in practical ways the reality of their positional possession – holiness. 

They are saints by calling, and they are seeking to live in obedience to Christ by “giving themselves” to one another in mutual submission and love.

While any reasonable understanding of what a church is and what a church does (as described here) would assume that this must be done in community with other believers, it is helpful to allow a dissenting voice to speak in order to demonstrate greater clarity.  In her book, How to be a Christian Without Going to Church, Kelly Bean takes aim at average local church experiences over the last generation or so.  She rightly points out that many local churches are active but not very effective. Whether she measures effectiveness in biblical terms or not is questionable at best, but her assessment may still be true when measured in biblical terms.

Her solution is to opt out of church attendance or involvement altogether, something she calls non-going.  She sees some problems that arise with such a lone ranger mentality, and she suggests, “A collective narrative is important for all.”[15]  The collective narrative she is looking for is exactly what is provided by the Gospel message and the mutually stimulated sanctification that occurs in Gospel-centered communities, through the proclamation of biblical truth and by the power of God’s Holy Spirit.  Yet, this is not something she seems to believe may be found in any communal expression of local Christians.

Bean seems to be unaware that she is describing the creation of a church, albeit an ‘alternative’ one, when she admits, “In many ways, the art of non-going and facilitating alternative Christian communities that offer the support we might need, is still in the works.”[16]  Reinventing Christian communities to offer ‘non-goers’ support so that they may maintain their non-going status sounds about like offering a fish an aquarium so that he may refer to himself as “a fish out of water.”

It is simply inconceivable that a Christian would find sanctification to be something that he or she should pursue outside of a community of believers.  Dever says,

“While our individual walks are crucial, we are impoverished in our personal pursuit of God if we do not avail ourselves of the help that is available through mutually edifying relationships in our covenant Church family” (Heb 10:24-25).[17]

Christians are, therefore, beneficiaries of the communal and covenantal relationship that is only available in a local church.  The local church is, then, both exclusive and active in this participatory endeavor of mutual sanctification and humble submission to Christ.

The exclusivity of a local church comes in the form of membership admission.  It may go without saying (but it never should) that local church membership is for Christians only (Eph 2:19-20).  There is no sense in which an unregenerate man or woman should seek communion among regenerate men and women.

Since regenerate people are diligently pursuing practical righteousness in themselves and in one another, the unregenerate person can have no genuine unity with them.  The very thought of hating his own sin and loving a Lord greater than himself is repugnant to the unregenerate man (Rom 8:5-8).

With this in mind, many local churches have put into place a kind of membership interview for potential church members.  These interviews, in one form or another, involve relationship building and include probing questions in order to discover Gospel clarity and some evidence of the new birth (Jn 3:3; 1 Pet 1:23).  Jonathan Leeman notes what standards he might put into practice in a membership interview when he says,

“Look for the ones who are poor in spirit; who mourn their sin; who aren’t entitled, always insisting on their way, but are meek; who are sick to death of sin and all it’s nonsense and so hunger and thirst for righteousness like it is water.  When you find people like that, make sure they know who Jesus is. Make sure Jesus is the one who fills their impoverished spirit, who has forgiven their sins, who receives their life and worship, and whose righteousness they depend upon and pursuit. When you find such people, tell them to join!”[18]

The exclusive membership of a local church is vital to the active mutual sanctification of its members because only those who have been sanctified by Christ will have any desire to pursue sanctification any further.  The church is to be the nourishing and chastising community that all Christians need in order to grow in sanctification. Mark Dever writes,

“Each local church has a responsibility to judge the life and teaching of its leaders and members, particularly when either compromises the churches witness to the Gospel (Acts 17; 1 Cor 5; 1 Tim 3; 2 Pet 3).”[19]

While judgment and discipline seem to be allergens in contemporary local churches, to avoid such things is to prevent the implementation of the clear and explicit design for the very institution itself.

Liberty, personal and individual freedom, seems to be the untouchable possession of the day.  However, rebellious sinfulness has often been masquerading as Christian liberty.  The London Confession explains:

“They who upon pretense of Christian liberty do practice any sin, or cherish any sinful lust, as they do thereby pervert the main design of the grace of the gospel to their own destruction (Rom. 6:1,2), so they wholly destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of all our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our lives (Gal. 5:13; 2 Pet. 2:18, 21).”[20]

Christian liberty is the deliverance from Christian enemies (namely sin and death) so that we might serve the Lord without fear, and so that we might walk in holiness and righteousness before Christ our Sovereign.

Therefore, local church communities are charged with holding one another accountable to the truth of the Gospel and rebuking one another when these clear truths are neglected, denied, or rejected.  In his book on healthy church membership, Thabiti Anyabwile explains,

“Formative discipline refers to how Scripture shapes and molds the Christian as he or she imbibes its teaching and is trained to live for God.”  He goes on to explain another form of discipline, which he calls “corrective.”  He writes, “No one lives in entire life without the need of discipline, whether positive or corrective. So the healthy church member embraces discipline as one means of grace in the Christian life.”[21]

Rather than lamenting accountability, the genuine believer embraces it with gladness because he knows the sinful inclinations of his heart and desires to live in opposition to them.

Fallen humanity is so utterly sinful that unregenerate man is enslaved to sin (Jn 8:34).  This is no longer true of the believer, for the Christian has been set free from bondage to sin and walks in this new freedom (Rom 6:6-7).  Yet, the sinful desires that remain can be detrimental to a believer’s sanctification if left unchecked.

In dealing with what he calls “deadly serious symptoms” of a “lust” or strong sinful desire, John Owen calls for “extraordinary remedies” to combat them.  He explains that the sinner or those around him may notice these symptoms, such as habitual sin or the sinning heart pleading “to be thought in a good state.”  Owen says, “When a lust has remained a long time in the heart, corrupting, festering, and poisoning, it brings the soul into a woeful condition.”[22]

He further writes, “A person who seeks peace on any account and is content to live away from the love of God in this life, so long as it does not mean a final separation, shows that his love for sin exceeds his love for God.”

Owen laments this disposition in the heart of a believing sinner, and he asks, “What is to be expected from such a heart?”[23]  Because this may be an acceptable posture from the perspective of some Christians for a time, it is imperative that others in their community of faith wake them from their sinful slumber and stir their hearts towards right desires as well as godly truth.

Not only should rebellious sinfulness be admonished in the life of the church member for his own sake, it should also be censured for the sake of the entire body.  Martin Bucer writes,

“One mangy sheep soon infects the whole flock. That is why the Lord also commanded so earnestly that evil and wicked people should be removed and driven out from the people of God” (Duet 13, 17).[24]

Bucer notices that the ‘mangy sheep’ may not be a sheep at all; in fact, it may be that the rebellious sinner is a ‘goat’ (Matt 25:32-33), or the problem may be so bad that he rightly be called a ‘wolf’ (Matt 7:15; Acts 20:29).  No matter the condition of the mangy sheep, the flock is at risk, and this is reason enough to act.

The particular action may vary, depending upon the response of the sinning member as he is engaged by other members and/or by his pastor, according to the prescription found in Matthew 18; but should the mangy sheep remain content with his mange, Bucer explains the necessity of his exclusion from the flock.  Bucer writes,

“[I]t is also necessary in order to guard the healthy sheep and feed them in the right way for the carers of souls to exercise the greatest earnestness for the good of the congregation to exclude and keep away from it all those who refuse to listen to the church when they are warned in its name to repent, amend their ways and seek what is good, but instead wish to persist in there disorderly lives, and do not want to do good according to their calling and conduct themselves in obedience to the holy gospel and lead a Christian life, but fall into serious sins and lusts and refuse to repent, or become rebellious and start up gangs and sects.”[25]

Now Bucer goes on to say that the Christian community should prayerfully plead with the excluded sinner, that he would repent from his sin and turn once again to embrace Christ as Lord and Master.  If the sinner should find repentance and confess his error, then he may be restored; “otherwise,” Bucer says, “we are to have nothing to do with them, and they are to be shown with Christian severity how greatly we condemn and abhor their ungodliness.”[26]

While this abhorrence for ungodliness may be too much for some to stomach, no amount of temporal discomfort can compare with the eternal torment that one may suffer under the wrathful hand of God if one has presumed upon the grace of God (Rom 2:24; Heb 2:3-4).

No doubt, this kind of seriousness about sin and about sanctification would be a shock to the system of many local churches.  Pastors and members alike may have a strong distaste for such intentional pursuit of holiness and righteousness.

The pastor who insists on elevating the sanctity of the flock for which he has been named the under-shepherd may realize that his genuine care for sheep has earned him their bitterness and hatred.  The church member who challenges his or her leadership to this kind of care and oversight may discover that there is no genuine care for souls in the heart of his or her leaders.

Dever, noting the difficulty of living in Gospel-centered and sanctifying community this way, reminds his reader, “Don’t give up! Don’t give in to doubt or disillusionment or fear of man! Take a longer view. God’s purposes for all of human history revolve around the local church as the visible, corporate manifestation of His Son, Jesus Christ!”[27]  This is a lofty task indeed, and God is at work among us.

The message is clear.  All those whom God has justified He has also sanctified, and He continually sanctifies them by the power of His Spirit.  Additionally, God has instituted the Church as the Spirit-empowered community of faith in which sinning Christians may walk in progressively greater degrees of freedom from their sin.

Christian community, then, is the sum and substance of the mortal Christian life.  The believer who tends towards self-righteousness may be humbled; the Christian who tends towards despair may be encouraged; the convert who struggles to break free from remaining inclinations towards sin may be restrained by accountability; the unregenerate pretender may be lovingly exposed and evangelized appropriately; the malevolent wolf may be discovered and expelled; and all of this may and should take place in the average daily life of the local church.

Bucer wrote, “Now, it is not possible for the word and doctrine of God to teach and command anything which is not possible, helpful, good and beneficial.”[28]  Did we ever believe otherwise?  May God grant us grace to love Him and grace to serve Him well!

 

 

Bibliography

Anyabwile, Thabiti M. What Is a Healthy Church Member? Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008.

Bean, Kelly. How to Be a Christian without Going to Church: The Unofficial Guide to Alternative Forms of Christian Community. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2014.

Bonar, Horatius. The Everlasting Righteousness, Or, How Shall Man Be Just with God? 1st ed. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1993.

Bucer, Martin, and David F. Wright. Concerning the True Care of Souls. Translated by Peter Beale. Edinburgh: Carlisle, PA, 2009.

Dever, Mark, and Paul Alexander. The Deliberate Church: Building Your Ministry on the Gospel. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2005.

Dever, Mark. What Is a Healthy Church? Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007.

DeYoung, Kevin, and Greg Gilbert. What Is the Mission of the Church? Making Sense of Social Justice, Shalom, and the Great Commission. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011.

ESV: Study Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2007.

Ferguson, Sinclair B. The Christian Life: A Doctrinal Introduction. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1989.

Leeman, Jonathan. Church Membership How the World Knows Who Represents Jesus. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012.

Luther, Martin. The Bondage of the Will. Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 2001.

Owen, John. The Mortification of Sin. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2004.

Purves, Andrew. Reconstructing Pastoral Theology: A Christological Foundation. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.

“The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689.” The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689. Accessed October 10, 2014. http://www.1689.com/confession.html.

[1] Bonar, The Everlasting Righteousness, 179

[2] Ferguson, The Christian Life, 124

[3] The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689, Sanctification, paragraph 1

[4] Bonar, The Everlasting Righteousness, 182-183

[5] Bonar, The Everlasting Righteousness, 175

[6] The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689, Sanctification, paragraph 2 and 3

[7] Luther, Bondage of the Will, 25

[8] The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689, Good works, paragraph 3

[9] DeYoung, The Mission of the Church, 227

[10] Bonar, The Everlasting Righteousness, 202

[11] The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689, The Church, paragraph 5

[12] Purvis, Reconstructing Pastoral Theology, 4

[13] Dever, The Deliberate Church, 110

[14] The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689, The Church, paragraph 6

[15] Bean, How to Be a Christian without Going to Church, 70

[16] Bean, How to Be a Christian without Going to Church, 70

[17] Dever, The Deliberate Church, 111

[18] Leeman, Church Membership, 88

[19] Dever, What is a Healthy Church, 106

[20] The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689, Christian liberty and conscience, paragraph 3

[21] Anyabwile, What is a Healthy Church Member, 76

[22] Owen, The Mortification of Sin, 54-55

[23] Owen, The Mortification of Sin, 57

[24] Bucer, Concerning the True Care of Souls, 183

[25] Bucer, Concerning the True Care of Souls, 184

[26] Bucer, Concerning the True Care of Souls, 185

[27] Dever, The Deliberate Church, 72

[28] Bucer, Concerning the True Care of Souls, 184

The Public Invitation

I recently read a very brief article, titled, “Proper Use of the Public Invitation.” In it, Pastor David Brumbelow affirmed the use of a “Public Invitation,” but I was disappointed to find no explanation of such a thing, nor any defense of it in the article.

Even though Pastor Brumbelow did not present any real argument for his statement, I think I might (at least partially) agree with him. I too believe that there is a proper and good use of a public invitation, but at the end of my Sunday morning services I do not include the kind of invitation Pastor Brumbelow is talking about.

The ‘Traditional’ Public Invitation

In my experience, many Southern Baptists today have a deep connection to a sort of liturgical formula which concludes a Sunday morning service with something called an “invitation.” Oh, I know… most Southern Baptists would not know what “liturgical” means, but we are still a highly liturgical bunch. A church’s liturgy is simply the customary structure of a normal Sunday morning service, or it can also refer to the layout of the annual calendar. And, if Southern Baptists are anything, we are customary.

Most every Southern Baptist church once ended the regular Sunday morning service with an invitation to join the church membership, present one’s self as a candidate for baptism, or become a Christian. After the preacher preached, the congregation would then stand to sing one last song (usually “Just as I am”), and either before the song or during cleverly-placed intervals between verses, the preacher would call sinners to walk down to the front of the room. It was there and then that the pastor would meet with, pray with, and otherwise counsel the responder.

“Altar call” was once the term for this event, and such language makes me shudder as a Protestant. Baptists do not sacrifice anything upon an altar, and there is no such furniture anywhere in our building. Some still use the phrase, but regardless of what you call it, this invitation to walk the aisle and join the preacher at the front of the room is essential in many Southern Baptist churches.

The Not-so-Traditional Roots of the ‘Traditional’ Public Invitation

If you ask the average Southern Baptist where this liturgical method originates, you are likely to get a look of confusion or disdain. “We’ve always done it like this…” is not just a Southern Baptist mentality, but we do seem to have perfected the practical application of it. The ‘traditional’ invitation is how we do evangelism as Southern Baptists.

However, there are roots at the base of this invitation tree, and we can see the growth over time. During the early colonial settlement of North America, there were two “Great Awakenings.” The first (1730s-1740s) was marked by passionate preaching among ministers and heightened piety and holiness among the people. Primarily a revival among the Dutch Reformed, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Baptists, and some Anglicans, the First Great Awakening included both numerous conversions and extensive life-transformation.

The Second Great Awakening (1790s-1830s) was similar but different from its predecessor. Methodism had been born out of the First Great Awakening (led primarily by the efforts of John Wesley), and this denomination officially employed “camp meetings” and “revival meetings” as its methods of evangelism. A Presbyterian minister, named James McGready (1760–1817), is credited with hosting the first known camp meeting, but Methodists and Baptists adopted the technique and benefited most from it.

At these camp meetings and revivals, Christian ministers (both local pastors and traveling evangelists) would operate according to pragmatic methods, which resulted in the desired response. There was a seat located near the pulpit, called the “anxious bench,” for those who were most worried about their own spiritual well-being. It was also the best place to sit someone who needed to do some time for the sinning they had done the night before. The order of the service was built around the progression from joyful congregational singing, to an emotional message from a preacher, and then to a solemn and direct call for some in attendance to respond by “coming forward.”

The camp meeting and revival services became the standard for anyone who was serious about evangelism, and local Methodist and Baptist churches adapted their Sunday morning worship services accordingly. The liturgy of most Southern Baptist churches is directly tied to the order, progression, and purpose of those para-church evangelistic meetings. Of course, it is also important to note that famous evangelists like D.L. Moody, Billy Sunday, and Billy Graham perfected and popularized this method.

The Biblical Teaching on Conversion

More than the mere practical failures of revivalism, the Bible’s teaching on conversion differs dramatically from the explicit goal of revivalistic pragmatism. While the camp meeting and revival service methods did a fantastic job of attracting a crowd and eliciting a response from many, the passage of time has provided conclusive evidence that the emotion of the moment was not always indicative of real spiritual life.

The Bible teaches that a sinner is spiritually dead, unholy, and rebellious towards the only God who can save him (Eph. 2:1-3; Rom. 3:10-18). When that same sinner is converted (or “saved”), he is made spiritually alive, cleansed of all unrighteousness, and now full of love for the God who has saved him (John 3:3; Eph. 2:4-10; 1 Jn. 3:1-10).

This is no mere emotional response! Certainly, one’s emotions are involved in their experience of conversion; and the Christian’s emotional experience will likely increase as he comes to understand more deeply how God has loved and saved him. But, conversion is an unparalleled transformation that cannot be coerced, or produced, or even rescinded by methods or strategies.

The multitudinous testimonies from those being “saved” on several occasions, the abysmal expectation of absentee church membership, and the inability of many Southern Baptists to understand their own personal responsibility for evangelism have shown us that the kind of emotional revivalism that marks our past is not what we should hope for in our future.

The Proper Use of the Public Invitation

Returning once more to the statement from my fellow pastor, David Brumbelow, let me affirm that I too think there is a proper use of the public invitation. I believe that every biblical example we have of a public invitation to “come to Jesus” (as Pastor Brumbelow put it in his article) is in the context of cross-cultural and/or cross-religion evangelism.

Peter speaking to the Jews from the diaspora (Acts 2:36-41), Peter speaking to his countrymen again from Solomon’s Portico (Acts 3:36-4:4), and Steven rebuking his Jewish brethren right before they stone him to death (Acts 7:51-53) are all examples of a proper public invitation. These are public invitations to people who do not now believe, love, or trust Jesus as Savior. In fact, the crowd’s general hostility towards Jesus and the claims of the preacher are evident in each case (especially so in Steven’s).

Later in Acts, we read about Paul going into the synagogues to invite his countrymen to “come to Jesus” as well (Acts 9:20-25). This is an invitation, like those from Peter and Steven before, to those who are currently hostile towards Christ and His message. These are still members of the same ethnic group, but they are utterly opposed to the Gospel when the public invitation to submit and trust in Christ is given to them.

Later still, Peter crossed the cultural barrier by preaching to Gentiles, at God’s command, inviting them to “come to Jesus” (Acts 10:42-43). Paul preached to Greek Gentiles in the midst of their own philosophical forum (Acts 17:22-31). On both of these occasions, there was a clear evangelistic motive and effort to preach the Gospel to unbelievers.

Time after time, we read about evangelistic efforts and public invitations to trust Jesus as Savior. However, not one of these public invitations is mentioned in the context of a gathering of believers. The worship service of a local church is specifically and definitionally a gathering of Christians; therefore, an invitation to turn from a false religion or sheer unbelief is not appropriate.

Utterly contrary to revivalism, biblical local churches should organize themselves and arrange their services for feeding and equipping those who already believe. Only then will the church be and do what she is biblically ordained to be and do.

After the church remembers who she is, then she may scatter among the world and publically invite others to join her.

I believe there is a proper use of the public invitation. I believe the public invitation should be used much more often today than it is. However, I believe the use of a public invitation on Sunday mornings does more harm than good; and I believe that such a thing is extra-biblical at best, and contra-biblical at worst.

The Southern Baptist Convention & Local Churches Must Change

As we think about our own local church (her challenges, goals, and resources), I believe it may be quite helpful to put things into perspective. We are a Southern Baptist (SBC) congregation, and we have been since 1919. We are also a rural congregation of about 110-150, depending on the Sunday. These metrics place us in the heart of the SBC.

Our church’s membership (more than double our average attendance) is numerically larger than 60% of all Southern Baptist churches (see charts and data HERE). That means we are in the top 40% of SBC churches right now. This may be one way of reminding ourselves that we are not an insignificant congregation.

However, as you may or may not know, a church’s membership roster is not always an accurate measurement of actual involvement. Our own members-to-attendance ratio (not quite 3:1 right now) is not unusual among SBC churches. In fact, churches across the SBC have been actively raising the expectation of cleaning up and maintaining more accurate membership rolls (see the 2008 resolution HERE). I have been slowly-but-intentionally doing this hard work among my congregation.

While numerical involvement is certainly not a trustworthy measurement of spiritual health, the numbers do not look good for our church or for the SBC in general. Even with our padded membership roster, the trajectory is downward.

The president of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary recently wrote about the current state of affairs among the SBC (see article HERE). He pointed out that the 2015-16 Annual Church Profile (ACP) reports marked the lowest number of baptisms since 1946, the lowest number of church members since 1990, and the lowest number of people in worship service attendance since 1996.

Dr. Kelly said, “Consider it official. The SBC is in decline, and it has been so for a number of years. The typical SBC church is struggling mightily to reach people for Christ in its city, town, or community, and it is struggling mightily to keep engaged the members it already has.”

While this is no encouragement to us, it does help us to take a breath regarding our own local “struggles.” Any time there is a perceived lack of success, the right thing to do is look for the hindrance. In our case, at FBC Diana, the decrease in membership involvement and lack of membership growth is certainly influenced by some local causes, but we are foolish to ignore the broader factors.

We do face the challenges of a small-town church who is experiencing a fairly dramatic leadership swing. The pastors before me, so far as I can tell, were men who loved Christ and loved this church family; but it is clear that the gifts I have and the things I emphasize are not the same as what they did.

Our many local challenges are significant, but they are not complicated, nor are they hard to see.

We live in a community full of people who think the local church is irrelevant. Those who still have a positive view of the local church, see the church very much like they see a grocery store… “The church that provides me with the best service and produce is where I will shop, but I will spend as little as I can to get what I want.”

People who faithfully commit to serve Christ in the common bond of the Gospel and in covenant with one another are extremely rare, and I praise God for each of those in my congregation.

So, what do we do? Where do we go from here?

Do we just keep doing the same old stuff, and watch the decline continue?

I don’t plan to… not by a long shot.

Dr. Kelly, the seminary president I mentioned before, said some other stuff in his article that I think is important to note in our attempt to make a plan.

He said, “Every strategy for evangelism from the first century until today assumes the life with Jesus is different from the life without Jesus. We must live distinctively if we are to be fruitful in reaching people for Christ. There will be no growth in evangelism without a growth in Christlikeness…”

I could not agree with Dr. Kelly more. He is saying that we must live like Christians – distinct from the world around us – if we are to have any opportunity to tell people that Jesus and His Gospel are life-transforming. If our lives are not transformed, then we are lying, and the people we live with know it.

Distinct living is the mark of true faith, and we must be willing to acknowledge our sentimental notions of Christianity for what they are. Jesus said, “if you love Me, you’ll obey me…” (Jn. 14:15).

Dr. Kelly also said that once we establish ourselves as distinct from the world, we should intentionally engage our friends and neighbors with the Gospel.

He said, “Southern Baptists must be intentional in seeking opportunities to have Gospel conversations with people outside the walls of the church… It takes focused attention to make and keep evangelism a priority in your own life…” He went on to say that we all should be asking ourselves, “What is my plan for evangelism, and what am I doing today to execute that plan?”

Again, I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Kelly here. He seems to understand, as I do, that the “Come and See” model of evangelism is not the way forward. We do not see many people turning away from sin and trusting in Jesus through events or by simply attending a church service with a friend. While event evangelism has its place, and your friend may be willing to attend a service with you, it is not the primary way forward in our culture today. Instead, we should employ a “Go and Share” model.

“Go and Share” is personally going to meet those who are not now following Christ where they are. And, we do this all the time… They are beside us at the ball fields; their kids and grandkids play with ours; they wave at us when we drive by their yard, and sometimes they even sit at our dinner tables.

The “Going” is something we already do, but the “Sharing” probably isn’t.

What is your plan for personal evangelism? When will you move the conversation from the weather to the Gospel? If you don’t feel equipped to share the Gospel, then when will you make an effort to become equipped?

What are you waiting for?

To quickly recap the plan being proposed here (both for local churches and the SBC generally), we must (1) live holy lives of gratitude before God, as we learn to trust and obey Christ all the more; and (2) we should feel the personal responsibility to share the Gospel with those we know.

One last thing will be the key to our success as a church family: We must pray.

We must pray like we believe we really need God… like we know that we cannot do this ourselves… like we are truly desperate to see people know and love Christ.

God is still in the business of saving sinners; He still delights in giving life to dead things, and He is still the gracious God who offers His salvation to all who will love and trust Him. God is also still in the business of shaping and shepherding saved sinners; He can easily give life to our church family, and He will bless our faithfulness.

 

He may or may not cause us to grow in great number, but He will most certainly cause us to grow in the grace and the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ… I know He will because He has promised to do it (2 Pet. 3:18; cf. Rom. 8:29).

The Church ‘Gathered & Scattered’

One of my favorite churchmen today is a theologian and pastor who speaks in terms of two distinct categories regarding the church’s identity and function. A simple description is: the Church Gathered is who we are and what we do each Sunday morning, and the Church Scattered is who we are and what we do with the rest of our time.

On Sunday mornings, the Church Gathered corporately and communally gathers under the name of Christ. We sing together, we pray together, we sit under the authority of God’s word together, we lament together, and we give together. This is our corporate worship and our corporate gathering in Christ as His people, His body, His church.

In this gathering, our awareness of membership with one another is heightened, our perspective of the communal nature of the church of Jesus Christ is calibrated, and our conjoined submission to and instruction from Christ is enjoyed.

Throughout the week, the Church Scattered serves as bankers, plumbers, homemakers, construction workers, transporters, caregivers, and a host of other things – all in the name of Christ as well. In varying ways, Christians serve Christ and their neighbor through the use of their individual gifts, talents, and resources.

When a Christian serves someone by nobly giving away her time and treasure in the service of another, the recipient may rightly understand that he has been served by “the church” –  the Church Scattered.

The church gathered is a vital institution, and the church scattered is a vital organism. The church gathered is well structured, orderly, and Scripturally defined. The church scattered is intuitive, sometimes seems chaotic, and Scripturally principled.

May God grant us grace to see our incredible need for one another as the Church Gathered, and may He grant us eyes to notice the innumerable opportunities we all have to serve Him and others as the Church Scattered.

Get People to Church?

As a pastor, I regularly receive letters, magazines, and emails about church. Various groups and individuals promote their segment of the action or their philosophy of ministry, which (of course) has led to great success. Success is nearly always measured by crowd size and/or dollar amount, and the uniqueness of the ministry is credited as the reason for great achievement.

“We grew from 30 people to 300 in 4 months!”

“We raised $300,000 for our project in just a few weeks!”

“We are a success because we tapped into people’s desire for… something other than THE GOSPEL!”

These stories are not just irritating; they are infuriating. I am not primarily angered by the foolish and simplistic measurements of success among many evangelicals today, nor is it the incessant desire to get the average church pastor to adopt some new way of doing church. These are both a nuisance, but I am astonished by the utter disdain we church leaders seem to have for the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

A local church pastor thinks to himself, “Gosh, I do wish more people in my town understood and loved the Gospel like I do. How can I get them to hear and believe?”

Then he receives 10 different advertisements about church growth and ministry success, all of them claiming to have discovered the key to reaching people with the Gospel. And all of them come with stories of personal success.

“Our water-slide, jungle-gym, and videogame all-in-one entertainment system has spiked children’s ministry by 400%! We are really reaching people with the Gospel now!”

“When I first heard about preaching from a glass box suspended by invisible wires from the ceiling, I was skeptical. But our Sunday morning attendance has doubled in 2 weeks! The Gospel is going forth!”

“We started theming our worship services about 3 months ago, and everyone really liked ‘Barnyard’ Sunday. I can’t wait for ‘Star Wars’ Sunday… I think it’s right after ‘NFL’ Sunday when we plan to have the game on the projector screen during the slower points of the service.”

At best, that local church pastor leaves the advertisement thinking that something other than the Gospel is the key to reaching people with the Gospel. Maybe he even begins to think, as the ad suggests, that the Gospel is unappreciated because it is irrelevant and ineffective. From this perspective, the Gospel is a problem that must be overcome by the use of some other means.

I want to say this clearly and emphatically…

Only the Gospel will actually transform you, your family, your church, and your town.

Preach the Gospel on Sundays. Listen to the Gospel preached on Sundays. Learn the Gospel story better and better. Think about the Gospel. Talk about the Gospel with others. Learn to apply the implications of the Gospel to fatherhood, motherhood, employee-employer relationships, stewardship, and a host of other aspects of life. Pray according to Gospel realities. Ask more probing questions about the Gospel. And then, then do all of this again next week.

Pastor, you don’t need to become an expert magician to reach your community.

Church, you don’t need to spend $250,000 on that next campus addition to entertain the people in your town.

We all need to know, believe, love, live in light of, and tell others about THE GOSPEL (Click Here for a brief summary of the Gospel).

If we will do that, you may just discover that the Gospel is more powerful and more compelling than you ever imagined.

“I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes…” (Rom. 1:16).

Southern Baptist Identity | A Book Review

One of the most recent books I have read is “Southern Baptist Identity: An Evangelical Denomination Faces the Future.” It was highly informative, candidly thought-provoking, and engagingly eclectic. I am thankful for the book form of these many essays from varying leadership among the Southern Baptist Convention.

You’ll read my full commendation at the end of this article, but I will go ahead and tell you that I believe every Christian would benefit from reading this book. Furthermore, I believe every Southern Baptist should read this book in order to contribute to the necessary discussion about the future of the Southern Baptist Convention.

 

Introduction

David Dockery, a proven unifier in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), edited essays from several leaders and thinkers in the SBC. The content is well introduced by Dockery himself.

He opens the book by writing,

“The SBC is the largest evangelical denomination in the country, with over 44,000 churches in all fifty states. Southern Baptists have often functioned separately from the rest of American Christianity because of their sectionalism, their inability to separate from Southern culture, their parochialism, and their self-sufficiency, though there are some indicators that these things are beginning to change. For almost three decades the Convention has been embroiled in controversy regarding theological issues and denominational polity. We now find ourselves asking important questions about the future and identity of the SBC” (p. 13).

With this introduction in mind, the rest of the book seeks to explain and propose how Southern Baptist might rediscover their identity and forge ahead into the future.

Summary and Interaction

The book has two larger perspectival sections: Theological and Historical Perspectives and Ministry and Convention Perspectives. I will provide a brief overview of each section below.

Theological and Historical Perspectives: Chs 1 – 7

Albert Mohler (ch. 1) begins the theological and historical section by asking the question, “Is there a future?” This is a good question. It seems that many Southern Baptists have simply assumed the answer is, “Yes, of course there is a future for the SBC!” This assumption would be foolish, however, given the changing culture around us and the declining numbers (statistically speaking) among us.

Mohler points to the historic roots of Southern Baptist identity in three theological principles with practical implications. First, one essential mark of Baptist churches has been the understanding that only genuine Christians should be embraced members of a local church (regenerate membership). Second, believer’s baptism has marked the affirmation of a Christian profession of faith and one’s entry into the visible membership of the local church. Third, covenanted church members of a local church are responsible for ordering the mission and function of the church according to Scripture.

Mohler, like all the authors in this first section, celebrated the “Conservative Resurgence” among the SBC and the positive results that have come from it. One should certainly read this book and others on the matter (Wills provides an excellent overview of the history and context of the Conservative Resurgence in chapter 3), but the Conservative Resurgence was essentially a massive shift in the SBC (1979-2000) away from liberal and moderate theological positions toward conservative ones.

Obviously, the history may be perceived through differing lenses, but there is no doubt that what Mohler says here is true. “Southern Baptists are now exceptional in the broader theological world” (p. 29). Marriage, abortion, and gender identity are all issues upon which Southern Baptists generally stand against the rest of the Western world (including other Christians). But, Mohler concludes his essay by reminding us, “Baptists are always better when we are outsiders. When Baptists are forced to be nonconformists, we are forced to go back home” (p. 40).

R. Stanton Norman (ch. 2) asks another crucial question in the discussion, “What makes a Baptist a Baptist?” Surveying the vast landscape of Baptist writings, Norman isolates what he calls “constituent elements of Baptist distinctives.” These are the essential or fundamental legs upholding the proverbial stool of Baptist identity.

First, the sufficiency and authority of Scripture is the starting block for any discussion of Baptist distinctives. While other Christian denominations also affirm the Reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura, Norman says, “Baptists distance themselves from other denominations… by claiming a complete dependence upon Scripture as the principal foundation for their beliefs and practices” (p. 44).

Second, Baptists are intentionally polemical. This is not to say that Baptists must be cantankerous (though some have earned the moniker deservedly), but it is to say that Baptists consistently “highlight the supremacy and uniqueness of the Baptist position in contrast to the theological deficiencies of other positions” (p. 46).

Third, Baptists are very interested in the way church is done. Ecclesiology (especially regenerate membership, believer’s baptism, and congregational polity) is essential to the identity of Baptists. Fourth, Baptists are blatantly volitional. From the necessity of an individual commitment to follow Christ to the liberty of all people to freely believe and practice religion without coercion, Baptists place personal responsibility on the individual.

Norman concludes his essay by naming two major challenges for Baptists today. One, Baptists must be “faithful to the heritage that is uniquely Baptist;” and two, Baptists must take on the “task of articulating our distinctive identity to our contemporary culture” (p. 62).

Russell Moore (ch. 5) highlights a 19th-century Baptist figure to draw out some lessons we might learn from those who have gone before us. Moore says,

“T.T. Eaton is not a hero; nor is he a villain. He was a hell-deserving sinner who often gave the world empirical proof of his theology of total depravity. He was also, however, a man of the church – who… ‘stood athwart history, yelling, Stop! with a Bible in his hands’” (p. 106).

Some of Eaton’s concerns are Moore’s concerns today. Moore claims that we have generally lost the faithful witness of past Baptists in the areas of (1) regenerate membership and believer’s baptism, (2) celebrating the Lord’s Supper, (3) practicing church discipline (led by pastors, and practiced by faithful congregations), and (4) the centrality of the local church (rather than parachurch ministries). With piercing words, Moore says,

“The decline of Baptist identity is not the fault of Joyce Meyer or Joel Osteen, Wheaton or Colorado Springs. It is the fault of local congregations who refuse to teach and mentor. If more churches taught Titus 2 women’s discipleship, there would be less need for Beth Moore DVDs. If more churches taught men to keep their promises, there would be less need to rent stadiums. If more pastors preached the Bible with passion and insight, if more churches actually crusaded for Christ on the campuses in their community, there would be less need for Campus Crusade for Christ” (p. 111).

Moore advocates for a return to essential Baptist principles. His candid and biting transparency may be offensive to some, but his voice merely echoes the thoughts and words of many younger Southern Baptists – at least many of those who have not yet given up on the SBC.

Paige Patterson (ch. 6) traces these same themes of Baptist identity from those common among the dissenting Anabaptists. While there in no direct line of heritage, there are many similar identifying marks. James Leo Garrett Jr. (ch. 7) looks back even further to the earliest councils, creeds, and church fathers for the themes and marks which Baptists hold dear today. Only the Landmark Baptists would see a need for a unique Baptist line all the way back to the 1st century, but Garrett shows us that Baptists may indeed claim a long Christian legacy.

Baptists have been around a long time, and we share the Christian heritage of those who came before the time when anyone was claiming to be a ‘Baptist.’ The essential and common practices of those who came before us did not arise from societal pressures or mere preference. These practices were built on theological foundations, and Baptists today must rediscover and recommit themselves to the essential doctrines that have made Baptists what they are. It should go without saying, but Baptists of today (and tomorrow) should not think, speak, and act out of step with the Baptists of yesterday.

 

Ministry and Convention Perspectives: Chs 8 – 14

This second section deals more pointedly with the current activities and structures of the SBC, including the national and state conventions, the various SBC entities, local associations, and local churches. The first section was focused on “Who we are,” though there were significant implications for activity, and the second section focuses on “What we do and how we do it.” Both sections contain a strong call for reform, but this second one will likely be perceived as the greater assault on the status quo.

Morris Chapman (ch. 8) lays out some axioms of cooperation among Southern Baptists. He provides six in all – a theological, a societal, an ethical, an ecclesiastical, an attitudinal, and a political – but first Chapman sets the stage and lists some problems. Tracing the formation and methods of associations in the past, Chapman ably demonstrates that cooperation is a precarious thing.

So many things lead to the decay of cooperation, and he lists three worldviews that we may recognize among Southern Baptists today. One is “perfunctory performance” (p. 162). Chapman says, “Hundreds of our contemporary churches have fallen into this pattern. They value their human traditions over the movement of God” (p. 162). The second is “pragmatism” (p. 163). This is a methodology based on a single question: “Does it work?” Chapman identifies the third problematic worldview by calling it “politics” (p. 163). This is the worldview that confuses Southern Baptist (even Christian) identity with partisan political affiliation.

Chapman offers six axioms as solutions. One, the theological axiom of Confession. Chapman argues that we must, as Southern Baptists, cooperate with one another based on a common confession of faith. He says, “If we must choose between heresy and schism, we always, always, chose schism” (p.166). Two, the societal axiom of Courage. Chapman says, “God honors the man who has not only convictions but also the courage of his convictions” (p. 168). Three, the ethical axiom of Character. Chapman says, “Consistent character is a necessary component of the Christian life. No admonition is more useful to those of us who highly value sound doctrine than the phrase ‘practice what you preach’” (p. 168).

Four, the ecclesiastical axiom of Collaboration. Chapman says, “We can do more together than separately. We, as Great Commission Christians, elevate cooperation of Christians as a core value” (p. 169). Five, the attitudinal axiom of Charity. Chapman says, “Cooperating conservatives believe it is entirely possible, in fact necessary, to maintain an irenic (peaceful and reconciling) spirit without bending one iota on basic doctrine” (p. 170).

Six, the political axiom of Co-belligerency. Chapman says, “Cooperating conservatives cooperate where it is possible… we can join together with folks whose theology we do not share in order to accomplish good works, as long as we do not compromise our theology. Simply working with them is not a compromise itself” (p. 170). These axioms form basic principles for moving ahead. As Chapman also acknowledges, the SBC is certainly in need of some intentional work.

Ed Stetzer (ch. 9) and Thom Rainer (ch. 11) both advocate for much the same thing, but regarding different aspects of Southern Baptist life. Both of these men hope for and invite others to act on a spirit of fundamental solidarity and gracious liberty. Solidarity among Southern Baptists should be found on the goal (missional living – evangelism), and liberty should be enjoyed and granted as to the precise methods we use to achieve it.

Stetzer, the quintessential SBC missiologist, urges all Southern Baptists to understand their role in this world as missional. Stetzer says, “’Missional’ is used in most Southern Baptist contexts to describe the attitude of obedience to sharing the Gospel around the world that all believers should possess” (p. 175). He goes on to say, “’missional’ does not refer to an activity or a program, but rather to the very nature of true, God-honoring, biblical, missions-focused, contextualized church” (p. 181).

Stetzer sobers his reader by saying,

“Day after day, as the culture around us becomes more unfamiliar and even hostile toward Christianity, many Southern Baptist churches separate themselves further from the culture they are called to reach, with a self-affirming and predictable comfortable denominational subculture contributing to this widening distance. This chasm of cultural understanding makes it increasingly difficult for our ‘church culture’ to relate to ‘prevailing culture’” (p. 185).

Stetzer argues that churches must intentionally resist becoming communal silos, but instead plan and train themselves to be missional. Missional churches, Stetzer says, must “(1) contend for the faith, (2) contextualize their ministries, and (3) cooperate with other churches for the kingdom of God” (p. 190). As churches seek to be missional, he says, “our task is not to listen to those who love church culture more than they love Christ’s commands” (p. 197).

Jim Shaddix (ch. 10) does a masterful job of conveying the predicament and the possibilities of the ‘traditional’ church. I believe any attempt I make to summarize his chapter would diminish the very potent work he has produced there. I urge the reader to read Shaddix’s essay in full.

As mentioned above, Stetzer and Rainer have much the same goals in mind, but Thom Rainer (ch. 11) focuses especially on evangelism and church growth. His statistics are heartbreaking, citing the number of baptisms as having decreased in 2005 when compared with 1950. While baptisms are not the only measurement by which we gauge our success as a church, as Rainer acknowledges, there is certainly cause for concern when we are seeing less conversions among a growing population. Rainer says that the lacking evangelistic zeal and activity among Southern Baptists might be due to a few things, but he boils it down to a matter of personal responsibility. Rainer says, “when evangelism is not my responsibility, it does not happen” (p. 220). This is certainly worth our time and consideration, and Southern Baptists must change course on the matter of personal evangelism.

Michael Day (ch. 12) gets down to the nitty-gritty of Southern Baptist structure in his essay on the nature and future of associations and conventions. This content will likely only be of interest to those who are in leadership in the SBC (including pastors of local churches), but I strongly encourage the laity to at least engage with these matters on an elementary level.

Day first points to the foundation of associations before there was a Southern Baptist Convention. It is informative, to say the least, to know how the structure we have today developed, and this will certainly help us to make a wise assessment about how we bring about positive change for the future. Day explains that associations were originally formed around common faith and practices, and they understood themselves to be responsible for defending their unity in such matters. In the early 1900s, however, there was a redefinition of associations, when state conventions and other cooperative entities were formed. Quoting Glynn Ford, Day wrote about the shift among associations. He wrote,

“The changes involved shifting from a doctrinally based fellowship of churches to an implementing agency of the denomination; shifting from a guardian of the fellowship to a denominational promoter; and shifting the initiative for mission from the churches to the state convention and national convention” (p. 227).

Day helpfully summarizes the history as follows:

“We were birthed by biblical Baptists who embraced biblical models of the church and the mission of God in the world;

We were nurtured by believing Baptists who were certain the mission of God in the world was too large for a single body and demanded cooperation among the many;

We were shaped by bureaucratic Baptists who have worked long and hard to guide and administer what have become large and often bulky organizations;

We have been defined by battling Baptists who have fought most often for the right things, occasionally for the wrong things, but always toward producing the refinement and redefinition necessary in cooperative bodies; and,

We are questioned by befuddled Baptists who are confused and concerned about the future of our cooperative efforts. As Frank Page (past president of the Southern Baptist Convention) said at a chapel address at Union University, “There is a lot of what we have been practicing for a long time that needs to be questioned” (p. 230).

Day candidly admits that a new operational model for state conventions and local associations is still emerging and not yet fully developed. The new paradigm, Day says, is developing as church-driven, priority-based, resource-focused, institutionally free, strategically managed, geographically unfettered, and Kingdom-conscious. Day also makes clear the fact that local churches and pastors are the driving force and strategists behind the development and implementation of the new paradigm. This is certainly an interesting chapter that deserves close reading and much discussion.

Richard Land (ch. 13) articulates what many Southern Baptists seem to know, but do not want to concede. We are no longer living as cultural drivers, and we are often not even welcome in the vehicle. Southern Baptists must learn to engage the American (and Western) culture as it is, rather than simply lament what it has become. Indeed, our ability to do this will have a huge impact on our very existence in the future.

Nathan Finn (ch.14) helpfully lays out three priorities for Southern Baptists as we move into the future from here. He also lists some specifics under each. First, we must renew our Baptist Identity. This includes an uncompromising view of the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, a renewal of our unity with Baptists and non-Baptists alike regarding the Gospel, and a renewal of our distinctive Baptist commitment to regenerate church membership (which has an implied commitment to believer’s baptism).

Second, we must renew our commitment to the Great Commission. This includes recovering a “robust understanding of the Gospel.” Finn says, “In too many of our churches, the Gospel is being downplayed, confused, dumbed-down, or redefined” (p. 265). With a renewed understanding of the Gospel message, Finn writes, “Southern Baptists must believe that the Lord is a missional God and that His church is a missional people” (p. 268). This, of course, will motivate us to be personally evangelistic and engaged in church planting efforts as well.

Third, we must renew our commitment to Confessional Cooperation. As of today, there is no confessional statement of any kind to which a church must adhere to be a Southern Baptist church. Cooperative Program giving is the only requirement.[1] Finn leans on suggestions from other Southern Baptists (David Dockery and Jim Richards) and proposes a way forward. He writes,

“I would propose that post-resurgence Southern Baptists adopt a brief abstract of the Baptist Faith and Message that affirms a high view of Scripture, an orthodox statement of the Trinity and Christology, an evangelical understanding of salvation, and a basic Baptist understanding of ecclesiology. This would form an adequate confessional basis for churches cooperating with the SBC” (pp. 274-275).

I believe that this proposal is a wonderful idea, but it will be interesting to see how other Southern Baptists perceive this same proposal.

These three priorities do indeed provide thought-provoking substance for a discussion about how the SBC meets the future as a post-Conservative Resurgence denomination. Only time will tell where we will go from here.

Conclusion

Danny Akin (Concluding chapter), desiring to send us off with marching orders, lists ten mandates for Southern Baptists in the 21st century. These are as follows:

1) Regenerate Church Membership. Southern Baptists must understand church membership is a privilege (not a right), guard against easy ‘believism,’ and cautiously baptize professing believers.

2) Believer’s Baptism. Southern Baptists must desire evidence of regeneration before one is baptized, cautiously baptize younger children, emphasize baptism as obedience to Christ, refuse admission into church membership without believer’s baptism, and uphold baptism as the public profession of one’s faith (not merely walking an aisle or saying a prayer).

3) Church Discipline and Disciple-Making. Southern Baptists must know and teach what the Bible says about church discipline, lovingly and wisely implement church discipline, and apply discipline to areas like absentee membership as well as the specific list provided in 1 Corinthians 5.

4) Genuine Word-Based Ministry. Southern Baptists must preach and teach the content of the Bible (not psychology, felt-needs, self-help, or any other popular content).

5) Faithful and Biblical Ecclesiology. Southern Baptists must guard the membership of the local church, expect the marks of (1) the Word, (2) ordinances, and (3) church discipline to be visible and practiced, and apply the biblical model of elder/pastor led and congregationally governed local church bodies.

6) Missions and Evangelism with Healthy Theology. Southern Baptists must live missionally in their own contexts, give charitably to missions abroad, and ground all missions and evangelism in a healthy theology that will guard against compromising truth for the sake of partnership or methods.

7) Church Planting. Southern Baptists must focus prayer, planning, money, and resources on densely populated areas to apply the 1st century Christian model of church planting.

8) Biblical Marriage. Southern Baptists must understand the divine covenant of marriage, affirm the value and necessity of premarital counseling and mentoring, acknowledge the gift of singleness that God gives to some, and affirm the gift of children as a ‘heritage from the Lord’ (Ps. 127:3).

9) Seminaries and Churches. Southern Baptists must view seminaries as servants of the churches, hold seminaries to a serious confession of the faith, and seek to form partnerships between seminaries and churches for a more well-rounded educational experience.

10) Remembering as we move Forward. Southern Baptists must remember who we have been, understand who we are now, and fervently seek to live authentically as Southern Baptists in the future.

 

My Commendation

This book, more than any other I have read thus far, has renewed my own hope for the future of the SBC. Whether all Southern Baptists agree with the proposals and conclusions found within, I am encouraged by the fact that such things are being discussed among those with platforms as influential as these authors.

I commend this book to any Christian who wants to know what it looks like to thoughtfully consider your place in the world and the right way forward.

I especially commend this book to Southern Baptists. I look forward to the conversations that must take place over these topics, and I pray that God will help us to be faithful on those matters that are essential to our survival as a people of the Book.

God does not need Southern Baptists to accomplish His work of redeeming a people for His glory, but I am glad He has used Southern Baptists in the past, and I long for Him to revive us as useful tools again.

 

Bibliography:

Dockery, David S., R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Gregory A. Wills, Timothy George, Russell Moore, Daniel L. Akin, Nathan A. Finn, R. Stanton Norman, Paige Patterson, James Leo Garrett, Jr., Morris H. Chapman, Ed Stetzer, Jim Shaddix, Thom Rainer, Michael Day, and Richard Land. Southern Baptist Identity: An Evangelical Denomination Faces the Future. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2009.

Get it HERE at Amazon

Footnotes:

[1] Recent cultural controversies have caused the open acceptance of homosexuality to disqualify a church’s participation in the SBC, but this is much more indicative of our remaining conservative values and not necessarily our strong theological convictions. There is simply no clear theological standard by which the SBC admits or dismisses churches. We may claim the Bible all day long, but so did Marcion, Arius, Joseph Smith, and nearly every other heretic.

Do Christians need the Local Church?

There is a strange and interesting conversation going on among many professing Christians in America today. Some people claim that “Christianity” may be separated from the “Local Church.” Whatever Christianity is, I would like to argue, it is inseparable from the local church.

The non-churched Christian is an animal you simply will not find in the Bible, and I’d like to add that such an animal (encountered in our day) is usually awkward and disfigured.

I believe our consideration of this topic will be encouraged by first defining what a church is, then addressing what a church does. After that, we will hear a dissenting voice, and then we will try to come to some thoughtful conclusions.

 

First, the local church is a gathering of holy people who are justified in Christ Jesus.

The local church is the visible expression Jesus Christ’s bride, adorned with His own righteousness and set apart for His intimate affection and care.

Martin Luther is credited with the profound statement, “the doctrine of justification is the article upon which the Church stands or falls.” Justification is the legal declaration of God, by which the sinner is declared righteous because Jesus was declared guilty on the sinner’s behalf. Not that the sinner works his/her own righteousness, but that he/she puts on the righteousness of Christ.

This truth is the comfort of all who understand themselves to be graciously included in the household of God. Horatius Bonar wrote,

“In another’s righteousness we stand; and by another’s righteousness are we justified.”  This truth, he went on to say, makes plain that “all accusations against us, founded upon our right unrighteousness, [may be] answered by pointing to the perfection of the righteousness which covers us from head to foot… as well as shields us from wrath.”[1]

Justification happens in an instant.  It is the doing of God Himself when the sinner is made alive in Christ Jesus and counted good, holy, and righteous in God’s sight (Eph 2:4-9; Titus 3:7; Rom 5:9).

Furthermore, sanctification is also an instantaneous declaration and positional reality for all who are in the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:11). Union with Christ includes a significant change in relation to sin, particularly that the Christian is now dead to or released from the power of sin (Col 2:20-3:14; Gal 2:20; Rom 6:1-14).

 

Second, the local church is a community of justified people who are growing in holiness.

If, as Martin Luther said, the doctrine of justification is the article upon which the Church stands or falls, then sanctification may be the doctrine which provides her (the Church) the appropriate clothing to stand admirably.

Christ does not merely call His prostituting adulterous bride to wear new labels (such as justified and sanctified); He also calls her to live accordingly (Eph 4:1; 1 Thess 2:12).

Living in light of her new status, the Church of Jesus Christ is declared to be holy, and Christ is making her holy by the washing of His word “so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor” (Eph 5:25-27).  This loving reconciliation and renewal is challenged by the fact that the visible Church is made up of believers who are still desirous of sin.

Herein lies the difficulty of understanding just how the visible Church may be clothed with righteousness as she stands justified before the watching world.  However, a visible Church, full of sanctified believers, arrayed in magnificence and clothed in righteousness for all the world to see is exactly what God has intended the Church do be.

The doing of good works by every believer is commanded and enabled by God (Titus 2:7; Heb 10:24; Matt 5:16; 1 Pet 2:12; Eph 2:10).  Not only thus, but Scripture informs us that good works will provide some evidence of genuine faith and discipleship (James 2:14-26; Jn 8:31).  Good works, or righteous living, do not produce justification or sanctification, but it is clear that good works necessarily and always follow such things.  Kevin DeYoung describes the relationship, borrowing from biblical imagery, in terms of botany.

“It’s not that good works are in the root of the tree; they’re not the thing that makes the tree what it is. They’re not the ground or the basis of our standing with God. But if we truly are redeemed through the blood of Christ, if the Holy Spirit truly dwells in us, then we will be people who bear fruit in good works. Our lives will be marked by what Paul calls “the fruit of the Spirit” (Gal 5:22-23).  And if those fruits are not present in us, Jesus says, we have reason to question whether the tree was ever really healthy at all.”[9]

God has not only promised to work within Christians to bring about the mutually desired end of complete sanctification, but he has also instituted local communities through which Christians are to engage in diligent efforts towards sanctification together.  The Second London Baptist Confession says,

“[T]he Lord Jesus Christ calls out of the world unto himself, through the ministry of his word, by his Spirit, those that are given unto him by his Father (John 10:16; John 12:32), that they may walk before him in all the ways of obedience, which he prescribes to them in his word (Matt. 28:20). Those thus called, he commands to walk together in particular societies, or churches, for their mutual edification, and the due performance of that public worship, which he requires of them in the world (Matt. 18:15-20).”[11]

Therefore, these societies or communities of faith are designed for mutual improvement, building up, or sanctification (Eph 2:19-20).  Paragraph 12 of the Second London Confession (in the section on The Church) goes on to explain that there are privileges, censures, and authoritative instruments that the Christian may enjoy in the life of a Gospel-centered community.

Rather than these communities being an end in themselves or even a rule unto themselves, they are local and communal expressions of mutual submission to the Christ who reigns over all.  Andrew Purvis expounds this view by saying,

“The ministry of the church is, by the Holy Spirit, a sharing in God’s ministry to and for us in, through, and as Jesus Christ.  The task at hand, then, is to focus on the profound interrelationship that must obtain between… those truths and realities about God that the church brings to expression through Christian doctrine… and pastoral care.”[12]

Pastoral care, the shepherding of God’s sheep and caring for Christ’s bride, is the task of “sharing in God’s ministry to and for” Christians.  The church is meant to be a local expression of “truths and realities about God,” which we find clearly revealed in the Scriptures and understand as Christian doctrine.

In less lofty terms, but just as potent, Mark Dever says that a local church is “a community of believers who have become part of the New Covenant in Christ’s blood and, as a result, have covenanted together to help each other run the Christian race with integrity, godliness, and grace.”[13]

Church membership, then, is a collective affirmation that Christians in local proximity to one another are attempting to live out in practical ways the reality of their positional possession – holiness.  They are saints by calling, and they are seeking to live in obedience to Christ by “giving themselves” to one another in mutual submission and love.

 

A Dissenting Voice

While any reasonable understanding of what a church is and what a church does, as described here, would assume that this must be done in community with other believers, it is helpful to allow a dissenting voice to speak in order to demonstrate greater clarity.

In her book, How to be a Christian Without Going to Church, Kelly Bean takes aim at average local church experiences over the last generation or so.  She rightly points out that many local churches are active but not very effective (her measurements of effectiveness are demonstrably unbiblical, but her assessment may still be true when measured in biblical terms).  Her solution is to opt out of church attendance or involvement altogether, something she calls non-going.

She sees some problems that arise with such a lone ranger mentality, and she suggests, “A collective narrative is important for all.”[15]  The collective narrative she is looking for is exactly what is provided by the Gospel message and the mutually stimulated sanctification that occurs in Gospel-centered communities, through the proclamation of biblical truth and by the power of God’s Holy Spirit.  Yet, this is not something she seems to believe may be found in any communal expression of local Christians.

Bean seems to be unaware that she is describing the creation of a church, albeit an ‘alternative’ one, when she admits, “In many ways, the art of non-going and facilitating alternative Christian communities that offer the support we might need, is still in the works.”[16]  Reinventing Christian communities to offer ‘non-goers’ support so that they may maintain their non-going status sounds about like offering a fish an aquarium so that he may refer to himself as a fish out of water.

 

Concluding Thoughts

Christians are necessarily beneficiaries of the communal and covenantal relationship that is only available in a local church. It is simply inconceivable that a Christian would find sanctification to be something that he/she should pursue outside of a community of believers.  Dever says,

“While our individual walks are crucial, we are impoverished in our personal pursuit of God if we do not avail ourselves of the help that is available through mutually edifying relationships in our covenant Church family” (Heb 10:24-25).[17]

The message is clear.  All those whom God has justified He has also sanctified, and He continually sanctifies them by the power of His Spirit.  Additionally, God has instituted the Church as the Spirit-empowered community of faith in which sinning Christians may walk in progressively greater degrees of freedom from their sin.  Christian community, then, is the sum and substance of the

Christian community, then, is the sum and substance of the mortal Christian life.  The believer who tends towards self-righteousness may be humbled; the Christian who tends towards despair may be encouraged; the convert who struggles to break free from remaining inclinations towards sin may be restrained by accountability; the unregenerate pretender may be lovingly exposed and evangelized appropriately; the malevolent wolf may be discovered and expelled; and all of this may and should take place in the average daily life of the local church.

So, do Christians need the local church?

Like a child needs a father and mother, Christians need a church family to instruct and train. Like a city needs emergency responders, Christians need a church family to come to their aid. Like a hospital needs a nursing and surgical staff, Christians need a church family to tend to their wounds and illnesses. Like a police officer needs a badge, Christians need a church family to affirm their inclusion under the authority of Christ.

YES! Christians need the local church! Biblically, you don’t ever have one without the other.

 

[1] Bonar, The Everlasting Righteousness, 179

[9] DeYoung, The Mission of the Church, 227

[11] The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689, The Church, paragraph 5

[12] Purvis, Reconstructing Pastoral Theology, 4

[13] Dever, The Deliberate Church, 110

[15] Bean, How to Be a Christian without Going to Church, 70

[16] Bean, How to Be a Christian without Going to Church, 70

[17] Dever, The Deliberate Church, 111

 

 

 

Bibliography

Anyabwile, Thabiti M. What Is a Healthy Church Member? Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008.

Bean, Kelly. How to Be a Christian without Going to Church: The Unofficial Guide to Alternative Forms of Christian Community. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2014.

Bonar, Horatius. The Everlasting Righteousness, Or, How Shall Man Be Just with God? 1st ed. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1993.

Bucer, Martin, and David F. Wright. Concerning the True Care of Souls. Translated by Peter Beale. Edinburgh: Carlisle, PA, 2009.

Dever, Mark, and Paul Alexander. The Deliberate Church: Building Your Ministry on the Gospel. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2005.

Dever, Mark. What Is a Healthy Church? Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007.

DeYoung, Kevin, and Greg Gilbert. What Is the Mission of the Church? Making Sense of Social Justice, Shalom, and the Great Commission. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011.

ESV: Study Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2007.

Ferguson, Sinclair B. The Christian Life: A Doctrinal Introduction. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1989.

Leeman, Jonathan. Church Membership How the World Knows Who Represents Jesus. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012.

Luther, Martin. The Bondage of the Will. Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 2001.

Owen, John. The Mortification of Sin. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2004.

Purves, Andrew. Reconstructing Pastoral Theology: A Christological Foundation. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.

“The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689.” The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689. Accessed October 10, 2014. http://www.1689.com/confession.html.

“Church” as One Another

Do you think of your church as the building you go into each Sunday morning?

When the Bible speaks of a church, it most often refers to the community of Christ-followers who gather in His name.

In the New Testament, there are nearly sixty unique commands to Christians about how they should behave in a local church family. These commands, directed at Christians in fellowship together, are often called the “one anothers” because the phrase “one another” is in each of them.

Christians would do well to consider their obligation and privilege to participate with one another in a local church. While these communities are imperfect, they are the only context in which God has ordained cultivation and nourishment for His people.

The Apostle Paul’s letter to the Christians in Rome was written with incredible theological precision and insight. After his magnificent treatise on the Gospel of Jesus Christ for all who believe, he concluded his letter by calling Christians to live accordingly.

Romans 15 includes three of the “one another” commands directed at Christians in a local church family.

Live in harmony with one another (Rom. 15:5).

The command is fairly straightforward. Harmony is grounded in the Gospel of Christ, and it is preserved there as well. Church members should never create strife over issues that are less significant than those doctrines associated with (or very near to) the Gospel itself. Harmony in the Gospel is essential, and harmony in everything else is most often a matter of humility and patience.

Welcome one another as Christ welcomed you (Rom. 15:7).

This seems like an odd command. Why would fellow believers need to be commanded to “welcome” one another? Well, the kind of open-handed welcome in mind here is much more significant than an occasional greeting on the way into a church service. Consider what it means that “Christ welcomed you [Christians].” Once the Christian begins to focus on the depth of meaning found there, then what it means for church members to “welcome one another” will come into fuller view. Christ, in the Gospel, welcomed His most rebellious enemy as His brother… This is an exemplary welcome indeed!

Be full of goodness and filled with knowledge, so that you are able to instruct one another (Rom. 15:14).

Whether Christians actually welcome one another and truly live in harmony with one another, most Christians know they should. However, many Christians might be surprised to learn that they are commanded to “instruct” one another as well. In the context of the local church, Christians are meant to form a community of mutual discipleship and growth. Like a mechanic might teach his son to repair and rebuild cars (both by informing and demonstrating), so too every Christian ought to inform and demonstrate genuine Christian discipleship. Christ commanded all who would follow Him to “make disciples” by “baptizing” and “teaching” anyone else who would become a Christ-follower  (Matt. 28:18-20).

These three “one another” commands only begin to form the full landscape of a local church community. The wise Christian will assess his/her current perspective of the local church, make note of any needed adjustments, and commit to participate in a church family as God has designed it.

May God give us all the grace to love Him, the wisdom to know His instruction, and the courage to live accordingly.

Who needs Church History? YOU DO!

Church History is a fascinating subject. From the rapid growth of the first century to the prevalent darkness in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and the contrasts of liberalism and fundamentalism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the Church has experienced God’s grace with varying degrees of visibility.  Always the object of God’s mercy and kindness, the Church has appeared to both love and hate the world, to both love and hate the unregenerate, and to both love and hate the very God who bought her from the enslavement of adulterous idolatry.

The Church is an invisible formation of sinful humans; which God uses as living stones in His miraculous construction. The Church is imperfect in her mortal and visible state, but one day She will be arrayed in a glory that was not Her own. The Church shall be presented before Christ as His holy and blemish-free Bride, and such an end is marvelous indeed.  All of Church history is moving Her from one measure of glory to another, and thanks be to God that He is the provider and sustainer of His Church.

The nitty-gritty of Church history has exposed me to some extraordinarily high highs and some shamefully low lows.  The first moment in Church history that captured my attention was a mixture of both.  The Council of Nicaea met in 325 AD in order to discuss the triune Godhead[1] and particularly the hypostatic union[2] of God and man in the person of Jesus Christ.  The council meeting itself was an odd concept. Those men who led the assembly were the objects of great persecution only a short time before. In fact, the very same governing officials who were calling for the convention were the ones who had led the charge against them. This new arrangement (not new to human history, but new to these Church fathers), combining the Church inseparably with the state, was all-too-well embraced by these Christian leaders.  Noll said,

“Nicaea was a turning point that set Christianity on a course that it has only begun to relinquish, and that only reluctantly, over the past two or three centuries.  That course was the addition of concerns for worldly power to its birthright concern for the worship of God.”[3]

While Nicaea certainly did produce some high quality theology, this point in Church history also marked the beginning of a struggle for worldly power and shameful exploitation of such authority by many of the mortal leaders of the most holy terrestrial institution – the Church.

There were perennial moments of both wonder and embarrassment from Nicaea onward, but it seems that one period rises above the rest on the skyline of Church history when it comes to a recapturing of the essence of Christianity.  The Protestant Reformation occurred during a time of deeply rooted corruption and far-reaching opposition.  This reformation of the visible Church had many contributing factors and countless men and women as its champions, but it is nearly undisputed that a single monk with a single mallet swung the first significant blows in the event that would come to be known as the Protestant Reformation.

Martin Luther grew up in Germany under the tutelage of the Roman Catholic Church as well as his stern mother and father.  Like any good Roman Catholic of his day, he exhibited both a diligent effort and a healthy distaste for various aspects of religious life.  This lawyer who had become an Augustinian monk finally traveled to Rome in anticipation of gleefully absorbing what he thought would be a hallowed city with devout men serving the holy God and His consecrated Church.  Instead, and to his extreme dismay, what Luther found was a debased city with corrupt men serving themselves in the name of God, and that at the expense of His Church.  Luther was heart-broken and furious at the sight of such a mockery, but his grand protest was actually intended to be something altogether different than what it turned out to be.

Luther composed ninety-five arguments against Papal indulgences, which was a corrupt use of Church authority to raise money for selfish gain.  Luther could not have known the impact he would make by nailing that text to the chapel’s wooden door at Wittenberg on October 31, 1517.  None of the most astute theologians, sociologists, politicians, psychologists or historians could have possibly understood how great the impact of this event would be.  It essentially marked the beginning of the Protestant Reformation.

The arguments contained in Luther’s 95 theses were symptoms of a viral incompatibility, and Luther could not have known how the technology of his day would be harnessed to spread these ideas so far and wide.  Luther wrote to one publisher of his theses, “They are printed and circulated far beyond my expectation.”[4]  While Martin Luther may have intended a theological debate among learned church clergy, what he got was a firestorm that recalibrated the visible Church and set Her on a new trajectory for the future.

The Church continued on this persistently reforming path of orthodox growth for more than a few centuries, and then came liberalism in 1865.  Liberal theology, that is soft and/or hetero-orthodox positions on core Christian doctrines, began to dominate pastoral training institutions as well as pulpits, and the Church has suffered great loss because of it.  “J. Gresham Machen called it a new creedless faith with no relation to biblical Christianity in his popular Christianity and Liberalism (1923).”[5]  Where once the character and nature of God was disputed vehemently among theologians and the cost for error was death, there now stands a plethora of theological leaders unwilling to acknowledge that such things even warrant a discussion at all.  The God who has revealed Himself in special and particular terms has been relegated to the realm of the wholly unknowable. Mankind is left with a god of his own invention who bears no resemblance at all to the God of Scripture, except that it occasionally is labeled with His name.

Before looking more deeply at these points in Church history, and the many others that string along to connect them, I knew that theology was important.  I knew that ecclesiology, soteriology, Christology, missiology, and the relationship between Church and state were significant matters deserving thoughtful investigation.  However, I have seen the fleshing out of what can be the result of erroneous views in one or more of these areas.  The Church today is in dire need of an ongoing reformation – not a single event, but a continual discussion about what it looks like to live out the Faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints.

Such a reforming posture seems already to be the stance of many in the visible Church today, but many more are presumably asleep at the wheel.  This generation of pastors, teachers, elders, professors, and leaders (and all those who come after them) would do well to equip Christians to find their place in Church history.

By God’s grace, when Christians recognize their place in God’s plan of redemption they become commendable for eternal glory. But, in God’s providence, when Christians recognize their moment in God’s plan of human history they may become men and women of whom the sinful world is not worthy.

 

 

Footnotes

[1] Godhead is a theological term used to refer to the unity of Father, Son, and Spirit in one ontological being.

[2] Hypostatic Union is a theological label used to refer to the joining together of divinity and humanity in the person of Jesus Christ. He was and is both God and man; one person with two natures.

[3] Noll, Mark A. Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012. doi:WorldCat database. (p. 55).

[4] “How Luther Went Viral. (Martin Luther).” The Economist (US) 401 (2011): 8764. Accessed April 9, 2014. Academic OneFile.

[5] Cairns, Earle Edwin. Christianity through the Centuries: A History of the Christian Church. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub., 1996. (p. 459).

Coalescing Churches and Missionaries

The Church – the universal body of Christ – is a unique institution made up of people rather than materials or mechanisms. Established and sustained by God Himself, the Church acts most like she should when she fulfills the role for which she has been created. The oft-quoted passage at the end of Matthew’s gospel contains the commission of the Church – her purposeful assignment and the promise of her providential Lord. In Matthew 28:18-20 Jesus says to His disciples,

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Mark Dever (commenting on this very passage) says, “Jesus’ command to go ‘to the ends of the earth’ [or ‘all nations’] reminds believers that Christ is Lord over all, that he loves all, and that he will call all to account on the great day. Therefore, Christians today have a responsibility to take the gospel around the world.” Dever also understands that congregations (local expressions of the universal Church) are bearers of this same responsibility, because congregations are made up of individual Christians. “Christians together can pool wisdom, experience, financial support, prayers, and callings and direct them all to the common purpose of making God’s name great among the nations…” Dever leaves no room for individual Christians or assembled groups of the same to remain unengaged from this Great Commission when he says, “Witnessing the glory of God proclaimed around the globe in the hearts of all his people should be an end and purpose for every local church.”[1]

Involvement in this intentional activity is no peripheral matter for any local church, and many congregations have been purposefully working at it for a long time. However, recent research and contemporary conversations are revealing that a disconnect may have developed over time between the two prongs that have formed the spearhead of this Christian commission. Local churches in America seem to have been allowed to understand missions as something that is done over there – anywhere but here – by someone called a missionary. Many local churches support “missions efforts” with their financial backing, giving a portion of their budget to some kind of cooperative program that distributes funds to local and international missionaries. Sometimes local churches may even call a special prayer meetings with a “missions” emphasis, but taking ownership of particular missional efforts appears to be lacking at best. In addition, the perceived distance between missions and local church ministry has permitted most American Christians to remain personally unengaged from the Great Commission. This is a tragedy.

What is worse is that missionaries, having such a strong commitment to go and tell, are continuing to do so without an essential and healthy attachment to a local church or churches. “The problem is that there are now missionaries all over the world with virtually no connection to local churches to love and care for them, shepherd them, and join them on mission.” To compound the loss, “there are also local churches full of laypeople talking about being ‘missional’ without the benefit of learning from those who are actively crossing cultures with the Gospel. They are talking about mission without the input of missionaries (emphasis added).”[2] If one is to understand what it is to be missional, it is imperative that one understands what it is to be a missionary.

Ed Stetzer helpfully defines the term “missional” in his standard-setting work on the subject of “missional churches.” He says, “Missional means actually doing mission… adopting the posture of a missionary, learning and adapting to the culture around you while remaining biblically sound.”[3] With this definition in mind, it is helpful to consider that missional living may only realized in the local church context as missionaries and their efforts are appropriately known and celebrated in the local church.

The bringing together of missionaries and the local church is a combination that regains the benefits of the multi-membered body of Christ. If the missionary is the extended arm of the local church, then the local church is the core, which lends stability, resources, and strength to the missionary. Just as the arm needs the core to function properly, so the core needs the exercise, reach, and functionality of the arm in order to remain healthy. There are many more aspects of local church ministry that may not include a direct relationship to missionary efforts, but all of what the local church is and does should center around the idea of living missionally in light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ – both in the context of its own community and in the world at large. These two distinct branches of missional engagement (missionaries and the local church) are so intertwined that each compliments the other in multiple ways, particularly when they are both functioning healthily.

The pervading goal of the missionary is the same as the local church, namely the Great Commission – make disciples, baptize them, and teach submission to Christ to the glory of His great name. If this directive is embraced and acted upon, the result will inevitably be a plurality of baptized disciples who will be life-long learners who grow in their submission to Christ. This plurality of Christians, if the missionary is properly focused on the task, will be formed into a local church themselves. “The result of [the missionary’s] work should be biblical, local, independent churches that reflect the soil in which they are planted.”[4]  Therefore, the missionary is most effective when he is planting local churches with those baptized disciples who have benefitted from his proclamation of the Gospel.

These locally planted churches will be better churches if they resemble the same kind of local church(es) that have cultivated a quality relationship with the missionary who facilitated their own rooting and grounding. If missionaries and local churches work in tandem (as it seems they were designed to do), then the cycle will simply continue. Aubrey Malphurs says of church planting and its ultimate goal,

“We are not to start just any kind of church; they should be Great Commission churches. These are churches that take most seriously Jesus’s command to make disciples! Making disciples begins with evangelism and continues with edification or the building up of the saints in the faith with the ultimate goal of their attaining spiritual maturity (Col. 1:28–29; Heb. 5:11–6:1).”[5]

Malphurs’ statement brings us back to the beginning; the Church acts most like she should when she fulfills the role for which she has been created. The goal of newly planted church is the same as the missionary, and it is the same as the established local church congregation. When the established local church is healthy, she will serve her role well as a support structure for the missionary and a model for the church plants that (by God’s grace) result from his efforts. When the missionary is healthy, he will serve his role well as an evangelist and facilitator for the eventual indigenous church plant(s) as well as a motivation and inspiration for the congregants who support him. When the indigenous church plant is healthy, she will repeat the cycle with new missionaries and fresh groups of newly converted Christians.

There are so many benefits to this relationship that a brief work such as this cannot explore them all. Suffice it to say that the coalescing of churches and missionaries is a recipe for enjoying vibrant, Great Commission assemblies of vigorous, missional disciples of Christ – both locally and globally.

 

[1]Dever, Mark. The Church: The Gospel Made Visible. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2012.

[2]Crider, Caleb, Larry McCrary, Rodney Calfee, and Wade Stephens. Tradecraft: For the Church on Mission. Portland, OR: Urban Loft Publishers, 2013.

[3]Stetzer, Ed. Planting Missional Churches. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2006.

[4]Crider, Caleb, Larry McCrary, Rodney Calfee, and Wade Stephens. Tradecraft: For the Church on Mission. Portland, OR: Urban Loft Publishers, 2013.

[5]Malphurs, Aubrey. The Nuts and Bolts of Church Planting: A Guide for Starting Any Kind of Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011.

%d bloggers like this: