 The marks of the Church By Robert P. Mills The Presbyterian Layman Volume 33, Number 5 Posted September 29, 2000 That the word “Church” is on a sign in the front of a building does not guarantee what’s inside.
The last issue of The Presbyterian Layman considered the question “What is the Church?” Following a brief summary of that article, we will explore Biblical and confessional understandings of the marks of the Church and possible responses when an organization fails to exhibit those marks. What is the Church? In the New Testament, the Greek word normally translated “church” is ekklesia, which was used to mean “a people who are called by God.” The Church is also called “the body of Christ,” which means that it is not primarily an organization or institution but a living organism, one made up of many parts that relate to and depend on one another, all of which have Jesus Christ as their head and depend on him for their growth. Nowhere does the New Testament distinguish between congregation (the body of Christians gathered at a specific place) and Church (all Christians in all times and places), for Christ is not divided (I Cor. 1:13). With this background we considered the controversial question of “leaving the church,” and found that widespread lack of precision concerning the meaning and use of the words “church,” “congregation,” and “denomination” has created much confusion. Some suggest that “leaving the church” is schismatic, a tearing apart of the body of Christ, and therefore sinful. However, if the Church is the body of Christ, and if the body of Christ is indivisible, then leaving the Church is not a sin but an oxymoron. These observations led to the questions considered in this article, What are the marks of the Church? and How may Christians respond when a group that calls itself a “church” fails to exhibit those marks? The marks of the Church Perhaps the earliest identifying marks of the Christian Church are found in Acts 2:42: “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.”
The Scots Confession retains “the true preaching of the Word of God” and “the right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus” and adds “ecclesiastical discipline uprightly ministered, as God’s Word prescribes, whereby vice is repressed and virtue nourished.” Some ecclesiastical organizations obviously fail to show any of these marks. But most situations are less clear cut, making it more difficult to tell whether, or to what extent, a congregation or denomination shows evidence of the beliefs and behaviors that are the Biblical and confessional marks of the Church. Why such confusion? Here John Calvin helps us by distinguishing between the visible and invisible Church. The visible and invisible Church “Holy Scripture,” writes Calvin, “speaks of the church in two ways. Sometimes by the term ‘church’ it means that which is actually in God’s presence, into which no persons are received but those who are children of God by grace of adoption and true members of Christ by sanctification of the Holy Spirit … “Often, however, the name ‘church’ designates the whole multitude of men spread over the earth who profess to worship one God and Christ. … In this church are mingled many hypocrites who have nothing of Christ but the name and outward appearance. There are very many ambitious, greedy, envious persons, evil speakers, and some of quite unclean life. Such are tolerated for a time either because they cannot be convicted by a competent tribunal or because a vigorous discipline does not always flourish as it ought. “Just as we must believe, therefore, that the former church, invisible to us, is visible to the eyes of God alone, so we are commanded to revere and keep communion with the latter, which is called ‘church’ in respect to men” (Institutes, IV.i.7). Missing the marks Change occurs over time. The Church is not exempt. However, change is not always beneficial, nor does it unfailingly produce the intended results. Even with the best of intentions, it may miss the mark. “I didn’t leave the church, the church left me,” summarizes the sentiment of many who have fled mainline congregations in recent decades. They found that the marks were missing, so they left. Did they leave the Church? Were their actions divisive, schismatic, even sinful? When a congregation does not devote itself to the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, the breaking of bread and prayer; when the Word of God is neither rightly preached nor rightly heard; when the sacraments are mocked and discipline abused or ignored; when the practices and pronouncements of a denomination contradict its claim to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, such a congregation or larger aggregation is not, in any Biblically or confessionally meaningful sense of the word, the Church. Therefore, to leave such an organization is not to leave the Church. Such decisions, of course, ought not be made lightly. After all, the earliest Christians continued to worship at the temple and synagogue until the leaders of those institutions made it clear they were no longer welcome. Martin Luther wanted to re-form, not leave, the Roman Catholic Church but was excommunicated. And contemporary evangelicals are quite rightly inclined to be intensely loyal to congregations and denominations that have nourished their faith. But until Christ returns, the visible church, will include wheat and weeds (Matt.13:24-43). As a result, strife, and even division, are inevitable. Nevertheless the invisible church, whose membership is known to God alone, is now and always will be indivisible, for the people of God are the very body of Christ, and Christ is not divided. |
||||
| Theology
that Matters index Respond to this article |
||||
| Home
· News
· PLC
Publications ·
The
Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
||||
