Thank you for downloading this Crossway book.

Sign-up for the Crossway Newsletter for updates on special offers, new resources, and exciting global ministry initiatives:

Crossway Newsletter

Or, if you prefer, we would love to connect with you online:

Facebook

Twitter

Google +

“I believe that the doctrine of the church will be the most urgent locus of theological reflection over the next generation. In Sojourners and Strangers, Gregg Allison clears the ground by presenting a thoroughly biblical ecclesiology, at once comprehensive in scope and sensitive to nuance. A welcome addition to an important series.”

Timothy George, Founding Dean, Beeson Divinity School of Samford University; general editor, Reformation Commentary on Scripture

“This is a timely, thorough, biblical, practical, and helpful book on the church. It helps us to understand Jesus’ church, and to love her and serve her as Jesus does. Having heard Dr. Allison teach this content, I am thrilled it’s finally in print.”

Mark Driscoll, Founding and Preaching Pastor, Mars Hill Church, Seattle, Washington; Founder, Resurgence; Co-founder, Acts 29; New York Times #1 best-selling author

“The doctrine of the church is one that continues to divide Christians, and especially Protestants, from one another. Dr. Gregg Allison has grasped this thorny nettle and produced a book that presents both the basic principles that unite us and the controversies that continue to produce different ecclesial formations. He maintains his own conservative, Reformed Baptist convictions while being fair to those who hold other views, making his book a valuable contribution to our understanding of this vitally important subject.”

Gerald Bray, author, God Is Love

“I am a full-time pastor, and therefore I must be a full-time theologian. As a pastor, my highest calling is to honor Jesus by shepherding his flock. As a theologian, my highest calling is to laud Jesus publically as the hope of the world. Quite frankly, I need help as I deal with real life difficulties that I could not fictionally create. Dr. Allison’s work in Sojourners and Strangers is the most helpful, theologically driven manual for leading in the church. If you buy it, you’ll wear it out.”

Tyler Jones, Lead Pastor, Vintage21 Church, Raleigh, North Carolina; Regional Director, Acts 29 Church Planting Network; Founder, Advance the Church

“Gregg Allison’s Sojourners and Strangers is historically informed, exegetically driven, and theological precise. Even more, this timely tour-de-force ecclesiology displays a love for the church and is written for the church!”

Chris Morgan, Dean and Professor of Theology, School of Christian Ministries, California Baptist University

“No longer can one regard ‘evangelical ecclesiology’ as a contradiction in terms. Among the many recent evangelical volumes on the doctrine of the church, Allison’s will undoubtedly prove to be the standard treatment for years to come. This excellent book is biblically faithful, historically informed, and pastorally relevant. One need not agree with Allison on every point of interpretation to profit immensely from his insights. I struggle to think of another volume on the subject that combines both theological depth and practical wisdom in such readable fashion as does Allison. I cannot recommend it too highly.”

Sam Storms, Lead Pastor for Preaching and Vision, Bridgeway Church, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; author, Chosen for Life and More Precious than Gold

“Dr. Gregg Allison has done a masterful job of writing a thorough yet practical analysis of the church. This volume is a ‘must read’ for any serious pastor or theologian who desires to look into the heart of evangelical ecclesiology. As a conservative Christian and pastor of a local church I am too quick to recommend or make decisions regarding the ‘practice’ of the local church with little thought of accountability or connectedness to the church both universal or historical. Allison brings such breadth and depth to the beauty of the church by tracing every section through the early church, Catholic Church, Reformation, and into our contemporary culture and times. I especially appreciated Gregg’s willingness to address prominent issues churches are currently struggling with—such as church governance or the ‘multisite’ movement. This book fills the void that has long existed in most evangelicals’ libraries!”

Jeffrey T. Gilmore, Senior Pastor, Parkview Evangelical Free Church, Iowa City, Iowa

“Writing an evangelical ecclesiology is a difficult task, due to the fact that evangelicals differ on many aspects of ecclesiology. All will not agree with the positions taken by Gregg Allison in Sojourners and Strangers, but all will profit from his detailed study. He is especially thorough in his treatment of polity and the ordinances, and goes down some seldom-explored paths in his opening sections. At points, his arguments require careful reading, but often open up new perspectives. I commend it to students of ecclesiology.”

John S. Hammett, Associate Dean for Theological Studies, Professor of Theology, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary; author Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches

“In this comprehensive treatment of the doctrine of the church, Gregg Allison brings a depth of doctrinal reflection, scriptural understanding, and practical wisdom to bear. Interacting with various ecclesiological perspectives throughout church history and today, he provides a balanced, biblical, and up-to-date treatment of topics from the characteristics of the church, to church government, to church ministry—all informed by his understanding of the paradoxical nature of the church as both part of the world and yet looking to another Kingdom. This work will make a major theological contribution to the expanding literature on the doctrine of the church.”

Justin Holcomb, Executive Director, The Resurgence; Lead Pastor, Mars Hill Church U-District; Adjunct Professor of Theology and Culture, Reformed Theological Seminary; co-author, Rid of My Disgrace

“Gregg Allison has done evangelicals a great service with a true theology of the church. In the endless stream of books and blogs on technique and pragmatics of doing church, Sojourners and Strangers gives an answer to the question ‘what is a church?’ that is superbly written, soundly biblical, theologically coherent, and practically applicable. His expertise in historical theology and his experience in leadership in a variety of types of churches enrich his profound biblical insights. It is a must read for all who are serious about leadership in the church of Jesus Christ.”

Gerry Breshears, Professor of Theology, Western Seminary

SOJOURNERS

AND

STRANGERS

Foundations of Evangelical Theology Series

JOHN S. FEINBERG, GENERAL EDITOR

The Cross and Salvation

BRUCE DEMAREST

He Who Gives Life

GRAHAM A. COLE

No One Like Him

JOHN S. FEINBERG

To Know and Love God

DAVID K. CLARK

Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church

Copyright © 2012 by Gregg R. Allison

Published by Crossway

1300 Crescent Street Wheaton, Illinois 60187

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher, except as provided for by USA copyright law.

First printing 2012

Printed in the United States of America

Adaptations from Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011) are taken from Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine, by Gregg R. Allison. Copyright 2011 by Gregg R. Allison. Used by permission of Zondervan. www.zondervan.com.

Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture references marked NIV (1984) are taken from The Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

Scripture references marked either NIV or NIV (2011) are taken from The Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

Scripture quotations marked NASB are from The New American Standard Bible®. Copyright © The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995. Used by permission.

Scripture references marked NKJV are from The New King James Version. Copyright © 1982, Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission.

The Scripture reference marked RSV is from The Revised Standard Version. Copyright © 1946, 1952, 1971, 1973 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.

The Scripture reference marked NRSV is from The New Revised Standard Version. Copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. Published by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.

The Scripture quotation marked HCSB has been taken from The Holman Christian Standard Bible®. Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission.

Scripture quotations marked KJV are from the King James Version of the Bible.

All emphases in Scripture quotations have been added by the author.

Hardcover ISBN: 978-1-58134-661-9

PDF ISBN: 978-1-4335-3601-4

Mobipocket ISBN: 978-1-4335-3602-1

EPub ISBN: 978-1-4335-3603-8

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Allison, Gregg R.

Sojourners and strangers : the doctrine of the church /

Gregg R. Allison.

p. cm.— (Foundations of evangelical theology series)

Includes bibliographical references and indexes.

ISBN 978-1-58134-661-9 (hc)

1. Church.  I. Title.

BV600.3.A45       2012

262—dc23                          2012015397

Crossway is a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.

SH  22  21  20  19  18  17  16  15  14  13  12

15  14  13  12  11  10  9  8  7  6  5  4  3  2  1

Dedicated to

Pastor Bruce Boria

and the Gifted Leaders of

Hinson Memorial Baptist Church

Portland, Oregon

1997–2003

Together, We Lived

The Doctrine of the Church

and

Pastor Daniel Montgomery

and the Gifted Leaders of

Sojourn Community Church

Louisville, Kentucky

Something from Nothing

CONTENTS

Series Introduction

Preface

Abbreviations

PART ONE:

FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES

CHAPTER 1:  INTRODUCTION TO ECCLESIOLOGY

Ecclesial Background and Experience

Basic Idea of the Church

Ecclesiology as a Doctrine

The Scope of Ecclesiology

The Sufficiency of Scripture

Other Sources

The Methodology for Ecclesiology

Continuity and Discontinuity between the Testaments

Biblical Language: Prescription versus Description

Basic Approaches to Ecclesiology

Concluding Question: Is Ecclesiology an Important Doctrine?

CHAPTER 2:  THE CHURCH OF THE NEW COVENANT

The Concept of the Church

The Concept of Covenant

Covenants That Were Operative before Christ

The Church of the New Covenant

The Inception of the Church

The Relationship of the Church and Israel

The Relationship of the Church and the Kingdom of God

The Identity of the Kingdom of God

The Church and the Kingdom as God’s Universal Rule and Eternal Dominion

The Church and the Kingdom as Israel

The Church and the Kingdom as Belonging to the Son of Man/Davidic King

The Church and the Kingdom as an Inaugurated Reality

The Church and the Kingdom as an Eschatological Reality

PART TWO:

THE BIBLICAL VISION—

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CHURCH

CHAPTER 3:  CHARACTERISTICS REGARDING THE ORIGIN AND ORIENTATION OF THE CHURCH

Introduction

The Church Is Doxological

The Church Is Logocentric

Logos: Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word of God

Logos: Scripture, the Inspired Word of God

The Church Is Pneumadynamic

Affirming the Church as Doxological, Logocentric, and Pneumadynamic

CHAPTER 4:  CHARACTERISTICS REGARDING THE GATHERING AND SENDING OF THE CHURCH

Introduction

The Church Is Covenantal

The Church in New Covenant Relationship with God through Christ

Church Members in Covenant Relationship with One Another

The Church as Covenantal: Some Specifications

The Church Is Confessional

Personal Confession of Faith in the Saving Lordship of Jesus Christ

A Common, Corporate Confession of the Church’s Faith

A Proposal

The Church Is Missional

The Church Is Spatio-temporal/Eschatological

PART THREE:

THE VISION ACTUALIZED—

THE GROWTH OF THE CHURCH

CHAPTER 5:  THE PURITY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH

The Purity of the Church

The Reality of More-Pure and Less-Pure Churches

The Unity of the Church

Foundations of Church Unity

Maintaining Church Unity

CHAPTER 6:  CHURCH DISCIPLINE

Definition and Its Biblical Support

Two Key Texts and Their Application to Church Discipline

Matthew 18:15–20

1 Corinthians 5:1–13 (with 2 Corinthians 2:5–11)

Other Matters Requiring Church Discipline

Heretical Teaching

Divisiveness

Idleness

Leadership Failures

The Practice of Church Discipline

PART FOUR:

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH

CHAPTER 7:  THE OFFICES OF THE CHURCH

The Office of Apostle

The Apostles and Their Qualifications

The Ministries of the Apostles

The Cessation of the Office of Apostle

The Office of Elder

Qualifications

Responsibilities

The Limitation of the Office of Elder to Qualified Men

The Complementarian Position

The Egalitarian Position

Responses to the Egalitarian Position

A Challenge from the Complementarian Position

The Office of Deacon/Deaconess

The Office of Service

Qualifications and Responsibilities

The Accessibility of the Office of Deacon to Both Men and Women (Deaconesses)

CHAPTER 8:  TYPES OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT

Introduction

The Supreme Headship of Jesus Christ

Historical Types of Church Government

Episcopalianism

Description

Biblical and Theological Support

Misapprehensions and Misgivings

Presbyterianism

Description

Biblical and Theological Support

Misapprehensions and Misgivings

Congregationalism

Description

Biblical and Theological Support

Misapprehensions and Misgivings

Varieties of Congregationalism

Single Pastor with Board of Deacons

Plurality of Elders

CHAPTER 9:  A MODEL OF CHURCH GOVERNANCE

Support for Strong Connections among Congregational Churches

Biblical Examples

Lessons Learned from Episcopalianism and Presbyterianism

Historical Precedents

Intense Longing for Cooperation

A Proposal for the Governance of Congregational Churches

Excursus: Multisite Churches

Biblical Support

Theological Support

A Multisite Church Model

PART FIVE:

THE ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH

CHAPTER 10: BAPTISM

Sacraments and Ordinances: General Discussion

A Brief History of the Development of Baptismal Theology and Practice

Baptism in the Early Church

The Turn to Infant Baptism

Reformation Changes to Baptism

Martin Luther

Huldrych Zwingli

The Anabaptists

John Calvin

Post-Reformation Developments

The Current Theological Divide between Paedobaptism and Believer’s Baptism: Who Is to Be Baptized?

Key Tenets of Infant Baptism (or Paedobaptism)

Key Tenets of Believer’s Baptism (or Credobaptism)

Evaluation of Believer’s Baptism by Paedobaptism, and Rejoinders by Believer’s Baptism

Evaluation of Paedobaptism by Believer’s Baptism, and Rejoinders by Paedobaptism

The Practice of Believer’s Baptism

The Mode of Baptism

The Meaning of Baptism

Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

Miscellaneous Matters for Believer’s Baptism

CHAPTER 11: THE LORD’S SUPPER

Historical Development: The Early and Medieval Church

The Five Principal Views of the Lord’s Supper

Catholic Transubstantiation

Lutheran Consubstantiation (or Sacramental Union)

Zwinglian Memorial View

Calvinist Spiritual Presence View

Anabaptist and Baptist Views

Biblical and Theological Framework

The Institution by Jesus Christ

The Pauline Tradition

My Perspective and Matters of Application

The Nature of the Lord’s Supper

Regular Observance with Biblically Prescribed Elements

Participants in the Lord’s Supper

Participation in a Worthy Manner

A Symbol of Church Unity

A Proleptic Celebration

PART SIX:

THE MINISTRIES OF THE CHURCH

CHAPTER 12: MINISTRIES OF THE CHURCH

Divine Enablement for Ministry: Spiritual Gifts

Apostles/Apostleship

Prophets/Prophecy

Teachers/Teaching/Pastor-teachers

Evangelists

Utterance of Wisdom and Utterance of Knowledge

Exhortation

Leading/Administration

Faith

Service/Helping

Giving

Acts of Mercy

Gifts of Healing

Working of Miracles/Miracles

Distinguishing of Spirits

Kinds of Tongues

Interpretation of Tongues

Other “Gifts”

The Church Worships the Triune God

Defining Worship

Regulative Principle versus Normative Principle

The Church Proclaims the Word of God

The Church Engages Non-Christians with the Gospel

The Church Disciples Its Members

Christian Education

Community Life

The Church Cares for People

Prayer

Giving

Financial Support of Pastors

Assistance for Those in Need

The Church Is for and against the World

PART SEVEN: CONCLUSION

CHAPTER 13: SOJOURNERS AND STRANGERS

SERIES INTRODUCTION

Why another series of works on evangelical systematic theology? This is an especially appropriate question in light of the fact that evangelicals are fully committed to an inspired and inerrant Bible as their final authority for faith and practice. But since neither God nor the Bible change, why is there a need to redo evangelical systematic theology?

Systematic theology is not divine revelation. Theologizing of any sort is a human conceptual enterprise. Thinking that it is equal to biblical revelation misunderstands the nature of both Scripture and theology! Insofar as our theology contains propositions that accurately reflect Scripture or match the world and are consistent with the Bible (in cases where the propositions do not come per se from Scripture), our theology is biblically based and correct. But even if all the propositions of a systematic theology are true, that theology would still not be equivalent to biblical revelation! It is still a human conceptualization of God and his relation to the world.

Although this may disturb some who see theology as nothing more than doing careful exegesis over a series of passages, and others who see it as nothing more than biblical theology, those methods of doing theology do not somehow produce a theology that is equivalent to biblical revelation either. Exegesis is a human conceptual enterprise, and so is biblical theology. All the theological disciplines involve human intellectual participation. But human intellect is finite, and hence there is always room for revision of systematic theology as knowledge increases. Though God and his Word do not change, human understanding of his revelation can grow, and our theologies should be reworked to reflect those advances in understanding.

Another reason for evangelicals to rework their theology is the nature of systematic theology as opposed to other theological disciplines. For example, whereas the task of biblical theology is more to describe biblical teaching on whatever topics Scripture addresses, systematics should make a special point to relate its conclusions to the issues of one’s day. This does not mean that the systematician ignores the topics biblical writers address. Nor does it mean that theologians should warp Scripture to address issues it never intended to address. Rather it suggests that in addition to expounding what biblical writers teach, the theologian should attempt to take those biblical teachings (along with the biblical mind-set) and apply them to issues that are especially confronting the church in the theologian’s own day. For example, 150 years ago, an evangelical theologian doing work on the doctrine of man would likely have discussed issues such as the creation of man and the constituent parts of man’s being. Such a theology might even have included a discussion about human institutions such as marriage, noting in general the respective roles of husbands and wives in marriage. However, it is dubious that there would have been any lengthy discussion with various viewpoints about the respective roles of men and women in marriage, in society, and in the church. But at our point in history and in light of the feminist movement and the issues it has raised even among many conservative Christians, it would be foolish to write a theology of man (or, should we say, a “theology of humanity”) without a thorough discussion of the issue of the roles of men and women in society, the home, and the church.

Because systematic theology attempts to address itself not only to the timeless issues presented in Scripture but also to the current issues of one’s day and culture, each theology will to some extent need to be redone in each generation. Biblical truth does not change from generation to generation, but the issues that confront the church do. A theology that was adequate for a different era and different culture may simply not speak to key issues in a given culture at a given time. Hence, in this series we are reworking evangelical systematic theology, though we do so with the understanding that in future generations there will be room for a revision of theology again.

How, then, do the contributors to this series understand the nature of systematic theology? Systematic theology as done from an evangelical Christian perspective involves study of the person, works, and relationships of God. As evangelicals committed to the full inspiration, inerrancy, and final authority of Scripture, we demand that whatever appears in a systematic theology correspond to the way things are and must not contradict any claim taught in Scripture. Holy Writ is the touchstone of our theology, but we do not limit the source material for systematics to Scripture alone. Hence, whatever information from history, science, philosophy, and the like is relevant to our understanding of God and his relation to our world is fair game for systematics. Depending on the specific interests and expertise of the contributors to this series, their respective volumes will reflect interaction with one or more of these disciplines.

What is the rationale for appealing to other sources than Scripture and other disciplines than the biblical ones? Since God created the universe, there is revelation of God not only in Scripture but in the created order as well. There are many disciplines that study our world, just as does theology. But since the world studied by the non-theological disciplines is the world created by God, any data and conclusions in the so-called secular disciplines that accurately reflect the real world are also relevant to our understanding of the God who made that world. Hence, in a general sense, since all of creation is God’s work, nothing is outside the realm of theology. The so-called secular disciplines need to be thought of in a theological context, because they are reflecting on the universe God created, just as is the theologian. And, of course, there are many claims in the non-theological disciplines that are generally accepted as true (although this does not mean that every claim in non-theological disciplines is true, or that we are in a position with respect to every proposition to know whether it is true or false). Since this is so, and since all disciplines are in one way or another reflecting on our universe, a universe made by God, any true statement in any discipline should in some way be informative for our understanding of God and his relation to our world. Hence, we have felt it appropriate to incorporate data from outside the Bible in our theological formulations.

As to the specific design of this series, our intention is to address all areas of evangelical theology with a special emphasis on key issues in each area. While other series may be more like a history of doctrine, this series purposes to incorporate insights from Scripture, historical theology, philosophy, etc., in order to produce an up-to-date work in systematic theology. Though all contributors to the series are thoroughly evangelical in their theology, embracing the historical orthodox doctrines of the church, the series as a whole is not meant to be slanted in the direction of one form of evangelical theology. Nonetheless, most of the writers come from a Reformed perspective. Alternate evangelical and non-evangelical options, however, are discussed.

As to style and intended audience, this series is meant to rest on the very best of scholarship while at the same time being understandable to the beginner in theology as well as to the academic theologian. With that in mind, contributors are writing in a clear style, taking care to define whatever technical term they use.

Finally, we believe that systematic theology is not just for the understanding. It must apply to life, and it must be lived. As Paul wrote to Timothy, God has given divine revelation for many purposes, including ones that necessitate doing theology, but the ultimate reason for giving revelation and for theologians doing theology is that the people of God may be fitted for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16–17). In light of the need for theology to connect to life, each of the contributors not only formulates doctrines but also explains how those doctrines practically apply to everyday living.

It is our sincerest hope that the work we have done in this series will first glorify and please God, and, secondly, instruct and edify the people of God. May God be pleased to use this series to those ends, and may he richly bless you as you read the fruits of our labors.

John S. Feinberg

General Editor

PREFACE

“What is a church?”

At first glance, this question appears to be easily answerable. For nearly two millennia, churches have been planted and expanded, have birthed other churches and gone out of existence, have advanced and regressed, have united and divided. Whether the “sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5) or covert converts meeting underground in the catacombs of Rome or in barns in eastern France, whether an 800,000-member church in Korea or a house church in Seattle, whether a storefront church in Beirut or a thatched-roof hut in Zimbabwe, the reality of churches is undeniable. And it seems that we know what a church is.

Upon further reflection, the question “What is a church?” presents a quandary. One reason for this, as hinted above, is the vast diversity of groups, assemblies, even denominations laying claim to the title “church.” One such entity, the Roman Catholic Church, insists that it and it alone is the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic” church.[1] Opposed to this claim since their inception, Protestant churches have articulated the “marks of the church,” essential elements that distinguish “true” churches from the “false” (i.e., Roman Catholic) church. Among these Protestant churches are hundreds of variations, including many different types of evangelical churches. Though certainly not as diverse, the Orthodox Church has its various national manifestations—the Greek Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, and so on. This dizzying array of remarkable and oftentimes confusing diversity renders any answer to the question “What is a church?” quite complicated. Indeed, Howard A. Snyder, focusing his attention on just evangelical churches, has remarked, “I will argue that while there is such a thing as evangelical ecclesiology, we might more appropriately speak of evangelical ecclesiologies, in the plural, and ask what each variety might contribute to the whole.”[2]

Snyder articulates a second reason for the difficulty in answering the question “What is a church?” “Today, evangelical ecclesiology is (as usual!) in major transition.”[3] He could have said this with reference to most current evangelical doctrines. On my bookshelves I have numerous theological works with words like “reforming” and “revisioning” in their titles. It seems, indeed, that most if not all evangelical theological formulations—e.g., the doctrine of God, theological anthropology, the atonement of Christ—are up for reconsideration and restatement today. The doctrine of the church is no exception, as a growing number of evangelicals are addressing and seeking to reformulate ecclesiology. If once there was a paucity of reflection on the doctrine of the church, it is certainly no longer the case today as a steady stream of books on evangelical ecclesiology are being published (not to mention conferences, training summits, websites, blogs, and the like).[4] And I doubt that this situation is what it is because of what J. C. Hoekendijk wrote: “In history a keen ecclesiological interest has, almost without exception, been a sign of spiritual decadence. . . .”[5] Without commenting on the state of spirituality today, I do take the current “keen ecclesiological interest” as an encouraging sign. But the growing amount of material on the doctrine of the church and the transition underway in evangelical ecclesiology complicate attempts at answering the question “What is a church?”

For these and other reasons, the task set before me—to write a new evangelical ecclesiology as part of Crossway’s Foundations of Evangelical Theology series—was daunting. Yet, I was encouraged to take it on by John Feinberg, my former professor, good friend, and general editor of the series. His work with me on this volume has been immense, challenging, beneficial, and greatly needed. I deeply appreciate his friendship and editorial work. I can say the same for Al Fisher at Crossway, for he kept me focused on the task and was always an encouragement personally. Bill Deckard is a master editor whose meticulous corrections and fine suggestions have made this a better, more readable book. Informally, numerous other people have contributed to this book by way of reading and critiquing it, including my former colleagues at Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon, and my current colleagues at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. Special mention must be made of Gerry Breshears, Bruce Ware, Steve Wellum, Chad Brand, Peter Gentry, and Greg Wills.

Several of my Garrett Fellows as well as participants in my Systematic Theology 3 course, my PhD seminars on ecclesiology, the PhD colloquium on ecclesiology at SBTS, and friends have read and commented on rough drafts of chapters and/or the entire work. Special thanks goes to Reid Monaghan, Aaron O’Kelley, George Cochran, Chris Bosson, Ryan Lister, Chris Bonts, Chris Clemans, Wayne Shealey, Matt Wireman, Greg Gilbert, Jason Allan, Oren Martin, Jeremy Kimble, Micah McCormick, Karl Schumacher, Jinse Kim, Soon Park, Jeremy Pierre, Lee Tankersley, Toby Jennings, Greg Jackson, Joshua Boswell, Timothy Harris, Michael Galdamaz, Michael Williams, Robbie Sagers, Phillip Bethancourt, Matthew Barrett, Luke Stamps, Kevin Webb, James Risner, Jedidiah Coppenger, Ryan Bishop, Ryan Brandt, Eric Britt, Grant Gaines, Ricky Hardison, David Knierim, Brent Parker, Darryl Pepper, Kenneth Reid, Adam Winters, Michael York, Matthew Claridge, Sung-Hyun (Joseph) Baik, William Brooks, Derek Brown, J. T. English, Joshua Jean, Walter (Scott) Lamb, John LaRue, John Morrison, Seth Osborne, Daniel Patterson, Andrew Record, David (Gene) Roberts, and John Wind. Several churches—Good Shepherd Community Church (with Steve Keels) near Portland, Oregon; Sojourn Community Church (with Daniel Montgomery) in Louisville, Kentucky; Grace Community Church (with Rod Bunton) in Tallahassee, Florida; Calvary Baptist Church (with Matt Burton) in Elgin, Illinois; All Nation’s Church (with Bob Altstadt) near Cincinnati, Ohio; Vintage21 Church (with Tyler Jones) in Raleigh, North Carolina; Immanuel Church (with Ray Ortlund Jr.) in Nashville, Tennessee; and my “Missional Ecclesiology” courses for Re:train (with Mark Driscoll/Mars Hill Church/Acts 29) in Seattle, Washington—have allowed me to experiment on them as I have taught parts of this book in sermons, retreats, Sunday school classes, courses, or special forums. Being the chairman of the board at Hinson Memorial Baptist Church in Portland and working with the leadership there (Bruce Boria, to whom this book is dedicated, and scores of others) taught me much about ecclesiology and actually how to “do church.” Their help has been immensely beneficial. Additionally, being an elder at Sojourn Community Church in Louisville and working with the other elders (Daniel Montgomery, to whom this book is also dedicated, and many others) is teaching me much about leading and shepherding a multisite church. Again, their help is so beneficial. Whatever appears here that is deficient or in error is my responsibility, not theirs. Throughout the writing of this book, my family—Nora, Lauren and Troy, Hanell and Mike, and Luke—was a constant source of encouragement, and I am continuously thankful for their support.

Finally, something else Snyder said (actually, the continuation of his earlier comment) gave me great encouragement to write this volume: “Today, evangelical ecclesiology is (as usual!) in major transition. Precisely for that reason, it faces a large opportunity. What better time to elaborate an ecclesiology that is soundly biblical and evangelical, prophetic and movemental, theologically coherent and sociologically aware, and functional for effective witness to the kingdom of God in an age of rapid globalization?”[6] Though I have not aimed at all these elements and have formulated my doctrine of the church with reference to other core values, I have appreciated Snyder’s challenge to elaborate this ecclesiology. Whether I have succeeded in the task awaits your reading and assessment and, ultimately, the evaluation of Jesus Christ, the head of the church and the one who redeems and guides “sojourners and strangers” (see 1 Pet. 2:11).

___________________

[1]Although segments of the post–Vatican II Church largely minimized this exclusivist claim to be the only true church, Pope Benedict XVI clarified the issue by reiterating the historic position of the Church: because it and it alone possesses apostolic succession, the Catholic Church is the only true church. Accordingly, the Pope specifically denied that Protestant churches constitute true churches. See the motu proprio (July 10, 2007) of Pope Benedict XVI, “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church,” http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html, accessed June 17, 2011.

[2]Howard A. Snyder, “The Marks of Evangelical Ecclesiology,” in Evangelical Ecclesiology: Reality or Illusion? ed. John G. Stackhouse (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 77. Such a comment is substantially different from the notion of multiple, divergent ecclesiologies that reflects a presupposition that the New Testament is itself so characterized by different theologies (and, hence, ecclesiologies) that any attempt to amalgamate those diverse strands so as to fashion a somewhat unified theology (or ecclesiology) is both naïve and impossible. See, for example, Graham H. Twelftree, People of the Spirit: Exploring Luke’s View of the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 3. Snyder’s idea is also different from “unsynthesized surveys of New Testament ecclesiologies” (Markus Bockmuehl, “Is There a New Testament Doctrine of the Church?” in Scripture’s Doctrine and Theology’s Bible: How the New Testament Shapes Christian Dogmatics, ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Alan J. Torrance [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008], 36). An example of such a survey is Markus Bockmuehl and Michael B. Thompson, A Vision for the Church: Studies in Early Christian Ecclesiology in Honor of J. M. P. Sweet (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997).

[3]Snyder, “Marks of Evangelical Ecclesiology,” 103.

[4]For example, the following significant works on ecclesiology have been published in the last two decades: Edmund Clowney, The Church (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995); David Smith, All God’s People: A Theology of the Church (Wheaton, IL: BridgePoint, 1996); Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996); Craig Van Gelder, The Essence of the Church: A Community Created by the Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000); Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical, and Global Perspectives (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002); Donald Bloesch, The Church: Sacraments, Worship, Ministry, Mission (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002); Brad Harper and Paul Metzger, Exploring Ecclesiology: An Evangelical and Ecumenical Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008); Michael S. Horton, People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008); Gary D. Badcock, The House Where God Lives: Renewing the Doctrine of the Church for Today (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009).

[5]J. C. Hoekendijk, “The Church in Missionary Thinking,” International Review of Mission 41 (1952): 325.

[6]Snyder, “Marks of Evangelical Ecclesiology,” 103.

ABBREVIATIONS

ANF

Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, Philip Schaff, and Henry Wace, 10 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994).

BAG

W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (1st ed.) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957).

BDAG

W. Bauer, F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd ed.) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999).

BECNT

Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

CQ

Church Quarterly

ICC

International Critical Commentary

JETS

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

NICNT

New International Commentary on the New Testament

NIGTC

New International Greek Testament Commentary

NPNF 1

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, Philip Schaff, and Henry Wace, 14 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994).

NPNF 2

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, Philip Schaff, and Henry Wace, 14 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994).

PNTC

Pillar New Testament Commentary

SBJT

Southern Baptist Journal of Theology

WTJ

Westminster Theological Journal

ZECNT

Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

I

FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES

CHAPTER

ONE

INTRODUCTION TO ECCLESIOLOGY

ECCLESIAL BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE

To begin with the obvious, if you are reading this book, you are probably involved in a church, so you have already experienced the reality of the doctrine that I am treating. The same is true of most other doctrines: we experience the reality of the doctrine of God as we relate personally to him as Father, the doctrine of humanity as bearers of the divine image, the doctrine of sin as those fallen from what we should be, the doctrine of salvation as those rescued from our depravity and corruption, and the like.

These experiences shape our theology of God, humanity, sin, salvation, and other doctrines.

Because this may sound reasonable to some but disconcerting to others, let me clarify what I mean by it. As a systematic theologian and contributor to this Foundations of Evangelical Theology series, I firmly maintain that the source—the sole source—and the starting point of our theology is Scripture, the Word of God. So when I affirm that our experience shapes our theology, I am not advocating that experience should contribute to the content of our doctrinal formulation or be the jumping off point for it, because Scripture holds those honored positions. But our experience does influence our theology. And this is perhaps nowhere more evident than in the doctrine of the church: our weekly engagement in our church’s worship service, our observation of how our church baptizes people, our participation in our church’s celebration of the Lord’s Supper, our engagement in our church’s missional endeavors to make the gospel known, our involvement in our church’s compassionate concern for the poor and marginalized, and much more influences our ecclesiology.[1]

If our ecclesial background, our church experience, shapes our theology, then it has influenced my formulation of the doctrine of the church that you are about to read. Accordingly, I want you to know the broad contours of my ecclesial background. I was raised in a “liberal” church in which a good Sunday would find my minister reading from the latest Time magazine, while a bad Sunday would feature an interpretation of his dreams. Congregational and denominational money was funneled to support such radical movements as the Black Panthers and Students for a Democratic Society. Yet, it was in that church, through a parachurch movement of that very denomination, that I was genuinely confronted with the gospel of Jesus Christ and experienced the saving work of God in my life. And I was not alone in this; scores of people in that church had similar experiences and made professions of faith in Christ. When we turned to our pastor for guidance in how to continue and grow in this newfound Christian life, he dismissively assured us that our recent experience would pass in a matter of a few weeks or months. And he was correct. Lacking any follow-up and discipleship, I and most of my friends shelved Christianity and drifted away from our conversion experience.

The following year, however, I became involved in another parachurch movement, Campus Crusade for Christ, through which I learned to make progress as a Christ-follower. I also became seriously involved in evangelism and discipleship of others, while minimally being connected with a local church. Eventually, this element of church involvement became more pronounced, and I even became co-pastor of a small evangelical Baptist church in Switzerland while continuing my work with Campus Crusade. Primarily, this increased local church association was with Baptist churches (Italian-Swiss Baptist, Baptist General Conference, Conservative Baptist) and the Evangelical Free Church of America. Most recently, my teaching career has brought me into association with churches in the Southern Baptist Convention.

This quick tour is intended to highlight one thing: my association with parachurch movements and my membership in various churches and denominations has shaped me and influences this present work on ecclesiology. This ecclesial background forms part of the preunderstanding[2] that I bring to my formulation of doctrine, including my theology of the church. Certainly, many other factors contribute to my theological worldview: my deep appreciation for historical theology, particularly that of the early church and the Calvinist wing of the Reformation;[3] my strong commitment to the first five ecumenical councils (Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Constantinople II; I also lean favorably toward Constantinople III); my cross-cultural experience; my complementarian view of human genderedness; my continuationist (not cessationist nor Pentecostal) view of spiritual gifts; and many other elements. But important for the purpose of this book, my ecclesial background and experience exert an influence on my doctrine of the church.

And so it surely is with all who read this book. Your ecclesial experience influences your ecclesiology, whether that is a well-developed, studied conviction concerning the church, or a subconscious, intuitive sense of what constitutes the church and its ministries.

To the degree that your church background intersects with some aspects of my experience, you will likely feel at home with my presentation. Likewise, to the degree that your ecclesial experience diverges from some aspects of my background, you will likely find yourself at odds with my ecclesiology. In either case, it is my hope that you will follow appreciatively the development of my ecclesiology—particularly as I ground it on Scripture, the source and starting point of theology—and that you will be benefited by the work at hand.

BASIC IDEA OF THE CHURCH[4]

So that you may know the basic direction in which I am heading in this book, I offer at its outset a summary of my ecclesiology, beginning with a definition of the church.

The church is the people of God who have been saved through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ and have been incorporated into his body through baptism with the Holy Spirit. It consists of two interrelated elements: the universal church is the fellowship of all Christians that extends from the day of Pentecost until the second coming, incorporating both the deceased believers who are presently in heaven and the living believers from all over the world. This universal church becomes manifested in local churches characterized by being doxological, logocentric, pneumadynamic, covenantal, confessional, missional, and spatio-temporal/eschatological. Local churches are led by pastors (also called elders) and served by deacons, possess and pursue purity and unity, exercise church discipline, develop strong connections with other churches, and celebrate the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Equipped by the Holy Spirit with spiritual gifts for ministry, these communities regularly gather to worship the triune God, proclaim his Word, engage non-Christians with the gospel, disciple their members, care for people through prayer and giving, and stand both for and against the world.

Each element of this definition requires a brief explanation at this point and will be discussed more fully as the book progresses.

The definition emphasizes at the outset that the church is the people of God or, in the words of the Apostles’ Creed, “the communion of saints.” In keeping with the title of this book, the church is composed of a particular people: “sojourners and strangers” (see 1 Pet. 2:11). In contrast with some common notions today,[5] it is not a building (e.g., the red brick colonial-style building with white pillars and a steeple just a few blocks down from where we live), a denominational tag (e.g., the Presbyterian Church USA), a national or state church (e.g., the Lutheran Church of Sweden), avatars worshiping together in the virtual world of Second Life, or the Catholic Church (with its claim that “the one Church of Christ . . . subsists in the Catholic Church”).[6] Rather, the church is people; specifically, the church is the new covenant people of God. Though the people of God have existed from the beginning of the human race (one thinks especially of the people of Israel who lived under the old covenant), the church (adhering to the new covenant) did not exist prior to the first coming of Jesus Christ.[7] He is the Redeemer who accomplished salvation through his atoning death and resurrection for the people of God who compose the church. It is through the gospel, and a response to it of repentance from sin and faith in Christ, that Christians have been saved (and by this term I mean all aspects of the mighty work of God that are commonly regarded as comprising salvation, including election, effective calling, regeneration, justification, union with Christ, adoption, sanctification, and perseverance). An additional aspect of the salvific work of God—one that is often overlooked but relates directly to the identity of the members of the church—is the incorporation of Christians into the body of Christ as he baptizes them with the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, all who are “in Christ” are de facto “in the church” and constitute its members.

The church consists of two interrelated elements, commonly referred to as the “universal” church and “local” churches. The universal church is the company of all Christians stretching from its inception (accomplished by the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, and created by the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost) to Christ’s second coming at the end of this present age (or, more specifically, the rapture of the church prior to his return).[8] It incorporates both the deceased believers who are currently in the presence of Christ in heaven and the living believers scattered throughout the world.[9] Whereas the former aspect of the universal church is gathered together as the “heavenly” church, the latter aspect does not assemble, does not possess a structure or organization, does not have human leaders, and does not have a specific space-time address. These intangibles do not render the universal church any less real, however, as the next point demonstrates.[10]

This universal church (at least its living members) is manifested (by Christ, its head, and the Spirit) and manifests itself (through Christians associating themselves with one another) in local churches,[11] which are characterized by seven attributes.[12] The first three are characteristics regarding the origin and orientation of the church: it is (1) doxological, or oriented to the glory of God; (2) logocentric, or centered on the incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ, and the inspired Word of God, Scripture; and (3) pneumadynamic, or created, gathered, gifted, and empowered by the Holy Spirit. The final four are characteristics regarding the gathering and sending of the church: it is (4) covenantal, or gathered as members in new covenant relationship with God and in covenantal relationship with each other; (5) confessional, or united by both personal confession of faith in Christ and common confession of the Christian faith; (6) missional, or identified as the body of divinely called and divinely sent ministers to proclaim the gospel and advance the kingdom of God; and (7) spatio-temporal/eschatological, or assembled as a historical reality (located in space and time) and possessing a certain hope and clear destiny while it lives the strangeness of ecclesial existence in the here-and-now.

Local churches are led by qualified and publicly recognized men who are called pastors or elders (or bishops or overseers) who have the responsibilities of teaching sound doctrine, governing (under the headship of Christ), praying (especially for the sick), and shepherding (leading through exemplary lifestyles). These assemblies are also served by deacons, qualified and publicly recognized men and women who serve Jesus Christ in the many church ministries. Because of divine grace and provision, local churches possess both purity and unity; because of sin, however, they must also pursue greater purity and maintain unity through both divine aid and Spirit-empowered human effort. When their members persist in sin, churches exercise discipline for the purposes of restoring erring members and rectifying entrenched sinful situations, restraining such sin-saturated realities, and preserving the honor of Christ and their own reputation. Churches also develop strong connections with other churches for the purposes of cooperative and more effective ministry, the sharing of resources, mutual accountability, and the like. And they celebrate the two ordinances of their covenantal relationship with God through Christ: the initiatory new covenant rite of baptism and the continuing new covenant rite of the Lord’s Supper.

Church members are equipped with gifts, given by the Holy Spirit, and they exercise those spiritual gifts in carrying out the ministries of the church. These ministries are: worshiping the triune God, proclaiming his Word through the preaching of Scripture, engaging non-Christians with the gospel, discipling their members through education and sharing in community life, caring for people through prayer and giving, and standing both for and against the world by helping the poor and marginalized through holistic ministries and denouncing the evils wrought by sin.

From this definition one can see my basic orientation to ecclesiology: from the ontology or nature of the church flow the church’s functions. As will be discussed later, a third category of approaches to this doctrine—teleological approaches—exists. I will subsume this category under my ontological orientation for reasons to be discussed then.

My task throughout this book is to explain and support this doctrine of the church. Before embarking on this task, however, I must address a number of foundational issues. These introductory matters will set forth how I will construct my ecclesiology.[13]

ECCLESIOLOGY AS A DOCTRINE

As a locus, or topic, commonly included among the other loci of systematic theology—the doctrines of Scripture, God, angels, humanity, sin, Christ, Holy Spirit, salvation, and eschatology—ecclesiology comes from two Greek terms, ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia), or church, and λόγος (logos), or word/study. Accordingly, ecclesiology is the study of the church, and this doctrine treats the issues of the church’s definition, covenantal relationship with God, relationship to Israel and the kingdom of God, characteristics, governance, ordinances, and ministries. As a doctrine of evangelical theology, ecclesiology considers biblical affirmations about the church and synthesizes all those teachings into a coherent whole, thereby setting forth what evangelicals are to believe today about the church. This systematic theology of the church is developed in conjunction with other disciplines. “Exegetical theology seeks to determine the meaning of biblical texts. Biblical theology describes the progressive revelation found in Scripture by examining the theology of its various groupings (e.g., the theology of the Pentateuch and the theology of the Synoptic Gospels). It also traces the many themes in these biblical groupings and notes their development over time. . . . Historical theology is the study of the interpretation of Scripture and the formulation of doctrine by the church of the past.”[14] Through solid interpretation of all relevant texts of Scripture treating the topic of the church (exegetical theology), careful consideration of themes about the church in, for example, Pauline literature and Peter’s writings and how they relate to each other (biblical theology), and aided by wisdom from the past in terms of a chastened tradition concerning the church (historical theology), a systematic theology of the church—ecclesiology—is developed.

THE SCOPE OF ECCLESIOLOGY

The Sufficiency of Scripture

The preceding section emphasized the importance of Scripture in the construction of ecclesiology. Such attention to the Word of God is a hallmark of evangelical theology and flows from, inter alia, the Protestant affirmation of the sufficiency of Scripture. As Wayne Grudem explains, “The sufficiency of Scripture means that Scripture contained all the words of God he intended his people to have at each stage of redemptive history, and that it now contains all the words of God we need for salvation, for trusting him perfectly, and for obeying him perfectly.”[15] In terms of how this attribute of Scripture is relevant for the doctrine of the church, the issue becomes, is Scripture sufficient for the construction of our ecclesiology? The answer will fall somewhere in three different camps.

The first view is that Scripture is not sufficient for the development of ecclesiology. Most evidently, this is the position of the Catholic Church. Because of its commitment to divine revelation being transmitted through two distinct modes—sacred Scripture and holy Tradition—the Church “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone.”[16] Catholic Tradition, therefore, provides further divine revelation for the Church in terms of its formulation of ecclesiology. In a very different way—informally, rather than formally—other churches and denominations hold to the insufficiency of Scripture, erecting church traditions (e.g., how the Lord’s Supper is served, the placement of the pulpit in the sanctuary, the use of hymns rather than choruses) that rival and perhaps even trump Scripture for authority in determining their ecclesiological doctrine and practices. All of these different perspectives deny for different reasons the sufficiency of Scripture for the development of ecclesiology.

The second view is that Scripture is wholly sufficient with regard to ecclesiology. This sufficiency extends not only to all general areas on which Christians of all stripes find themselves in agreement (e.g., the church is the body of Christ, with Christ as the head and officers or ministers functioning as leaders of local churches under his lordship). It also encompasses all specific areas that have historically divided the church (e.g., a specific form of church government). For example, Robert Reymond, articulating a Presbyterian ecclesiology, explains,

[O]ur Presbyterian forefathers, taking the sufficiency of Holy Scripture seriously with respect to church government, appealed to Scripture alone. . . . They perceived clearly that to believe that the Word of God is insufficient in its instruction for ordering the church’s government and affairs is, first, to imply that Christ is not adequately or effectively ruling over and guiding his church, second, to overturn Christ’s unique and absolute headship over his church, and thereby, third, to open the door for men to substitute their wills and desires as the standard of what should be ordered and done in Christ’s church.[17]

While some would disagree with Reymond’s specific interpretation of sufficient Scripture—which in his case results in the Presbyterian model of church government—this does not mean that they would disagree with his contention that Scripture is sufficient, even for matters of ecclesial oversight. Indeed, most congregationalists would insist that the sufficiency of Scripture demonstrates that their model of church government is the correct one.[18] It is the interpretation, not the sufficiency, of Scripture that is the issue, for Scripture is considered to be wholly sufficient for the development of ecclesiology.

The third view is that Scripture is sufficient in all those areas in which it aims to be sufficient with regard to ecclesiology. For example, proponents of this perspective may hold that Scripture is sufficient for prescribing the essential marks of the church to be the preaching of the Word of God and the administration of the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Thus, and because of the sufficiency of Scripture in this realm, for any church to be a true church, it must focus on these two elements. At the same time, these proponents may hold that Scripture is not sufficient with regard to the form of church government that should be adopted. Though Scripture indeed addresses the matter of governance, other sources contribute to the determination of how the church is to be governed. A case in point is the Anglican Communion. According to the preface to the Ordinal of the Book of Common Prayer, “It is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles’ time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church: Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.”[19] As far as the churches of the Anglican Communion are concerned, the threefold ministry does not derive solely from Scripture but from both Scripture and the writings of the early church Fathers. Moreover, these churches do not affirm that the three-tiered ministry was instituted by apostolic decision; rather, they claim it has been in place since the apostles’ time (with no comment on the extent of the apostolic responsibility for the threefold division). This example demonstrates the third position, which affirms the sufficiency of Scripture for what it aims to be sufficient in, while denying such sufficiency for other aspects of ecclesiology.[20]

My personal position on this matter is that Scripture is wholly sufficient with regard to ecclesiology (the second position). This view will become particularly important and apparent when I address the issues of worship and church government. But my affirmation of Scripture’s sufficiency will be evident throughout this book as I make constant reference to Scripture, wherever it makes affirmations that are pertinent to ecclesiology.

Other Sources

Several other sources vie for consideration in the formulation of the doctrine of the church, and I want to address two in particular: the social sciences and liturgical theology.

Given the interdisciplinary context in which scholarly theological discussions are developed today, a comment about interaction with other disciplines, especially the social sciences, is in order. Though a fairly recent addition to the “evangelical toolbox” for theological construction, the social sciences (e.g., anthropology, psychology, sociology) have become paramount in the last several decades, and many evangelicals are turning to them for building their doctrine of the church.

A leading example of this was Stanley Grenz, whose theological method included the source of culture (in addition to the sources of Scripture and historical theology).[21] For example, Grenz explored the idea of boundaries, looking at both biblical affirmations and set theory.[22] From the latter came two notions of sets: a “bounded set” and a “centered set.” Grenz applied set theory to ecclesiology:

Viewing the category Christian as a bounded set launches us on a quest to determine which beliefs and practices identify persons as Christians and separate them from non-Christians. It leads as well to a keen desire to differentiate clearly between persons who are Christians and those who are not, doing so on the basis of outward manifestations such as adherence to certain beliefs and conformity to certain practices. . . . (V)iewing the category Christian as a centered set shifts the focus away from attempts to define the church by appeal to its boundaries. Rather the emphasis is on Christ as the defining center of the church, and the church is seen as a people gathered around—or in relationship to—Christ.[23]

Whatever one may make of this proposal, it serves only as an example of how social science considerations can be called into service for the formation of ecclesiology.[24]

Without minimizing the important role of the social sciences, given the fact that I am charged with the task of constructing a theology of the church—and that such doctrine is to be developed from Scripture, not from these other disciplines—I will not bring social science considerations into the formation of my ecclesiology.[25]

Because of the growing interest in liturgical theology as a source for ecclesiology, a comment on this discipline is in order. Liturgical theology, in its primary sense, can be defined as the discipline that studies the nature, attributes, and mighty works of God (theology, used in its narrower sense as the doctrine of God, or theology proper) employing as its source the liturgy—the actual experience of worship—of the church (liturgical).[26] In the hands of some theologians, liturgical theology has taken on a secondary sense. In this case, it can be defined as the discipline that studies the nature, attributes, and ministries of the church (theology in its broader sense as the doctrines of Christianity, including ecclesiology), employing as its source the liturgy—the actual experience of worship—of the church (liturgical). Liturgical theology developed from “the formula lex orandi est lex credendi (‘the rule of praying is the rule of belief’),”[27] emphasizing that the liturgical practices of the church at worship—its singing, praying, celebrating the ordinances, and the like—shape its doctrinal formulation and, specifically for our purposes, its ecclesiology.[28]

As already highlighted, it is a matter of fact that our church experience exerts an influence on our ecclesiology, and part of that church experience is our experience of the church at worship—the church’s liturgy. How a church performs a baptism, for example, is determined, certainly, by its theology of baptism. At the same time, however, and in some cases more strongly, the church’s actual regular administration of this ordinance is determined by how the church has always practiced baptism.[29] So it is with the church’s celebration of the Lord’s Supper: certainly, the narratives of Jesus’ institution of this ordinance (Matt. 26:17–30 and par.) and the Pauline tradition (1 Cor. 10:14–22; 11:17–34) provide the biblical parameters governing the church’s theological understanding of the Lord’s Supper. At the same time, however, and in some cases more strongly, the church’s actual regular administration of this ordinance is determined by how the church has always celebrated the Lord’s Supper.[30]

Acknowledging with appropriate gravity the influence of the church’s liturgy, as an evangelical who champions the authority of Scripture over all things—including the church’s actual doctrines and practices—I must and do place liturgical theology in a ministerial role in the development of my ecclesiology.[31] All doctrines, traditions, and practices are to be chastened by Scripture, which is the norma normans (the norming or determining norm), not the norma normata (the normed or determined norm).[32] And so it is with ecclesiology and the experience of the church’s liturgy. Scripture is the source of theology in general and the doctrine of the church in particular; accordingly, Scripture and the disciplines associated with it—as noted above, exegetical theology, biblical theology, and historical theology (in that it provides wisdom from the past in terms of proper interpretation of Scripture and formulation of doctrine in accordance with Scripture)—will be my source in the construction of my ecclesiology. Because of my commitment on the next issue, New Testament Scripture will be my focus.

THE METHODOLOGY FOR ECCLESIOLOGY

The procedures by which the doctrine of the church is constructed constitute the methodology for ecclesiology. Three crucial issues must be faced, and one’s decisions on these issues will determine to a great extent one’s theology of the church. The three issues are continuity and discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments; biblical language, with particular attention to the distinction between prescriptive and descriptive language; and the basic approach to ecclesiology.

Continuity and Discontinuity between the Testaments

With the methodology for developing an ecclesiology in view, one’s position on the continuity and discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments is of signal importance. A spectrum of views vies for consideration. It should be carefully noted that all of the positions that we will consider agree that the Old and New Testaments together compose the inspired and authoritative Word of God (2 Tim. 3:15–17; 2 Pet. 1:19–21), that the Old Testament presentation of truth about God and his ways is necessary for Christians to grasp for their progress in holiness and maturity (1 Pet. 2:1–3), and that the Old Testament examples of justification, sin and condemnation, and the like are of great benefit for Christians today (Rom. 4:22–25; 1 Cor. 10:1–11; Rom. 15:4). Where the various views diverge is particularly in the areas of Old Testament law and prophecy, and the nature of the people of God.

Absolute continuity (e.g., reconstructionism/theonomy) maintains that the entirety of the Old Testament legal material—including its many moral laws, civil rules, and ceremonial regulations—continues in force today and thus is binding on Christians. Though the manner of observance of some of the Old Testament commands and prohibitions may have changed, their meaning and intention has not; thus, their practice is transformed but their principle is still operative. For example, the laws regarding the sacrifice of bulls and goats typified Christ and his ultimate sacrifice. Though Christians don’t observe these sacrificial laws by going into the temple and offering animal blood on the altar for the forgiveness of their sins, the principle of the necessity of an atoning sacrifice for sin continues to operate, and Christians remember that this principle and the laws related to it have been fulfilled in Christ.

Moderate continuity (e.g., many expressions of covenant theology) holds that while the Old Testament legal material generally continues in force today, it has undergone transformation in view of the many changes that have occurred with the coming of Jesus Christ and that have been enacted or verified by the New Testament. For example, because the church does not live in a theocracy (the situation of the Jews in some periods addressed by the Old Testament), the civil rules pertaining to theocratic living are no longer operative and are therefore not binding on Christians. Nonetheless, there is a general continuity between the two Testaments. For example, circumcision was the sign and seal of the old covenant, and it has been transformed into baptism in the new covenant; thus, laws related to circumcision apply in some sense to baptism. The most obvious application is the baptism of the babies of church members into the covenant community of the church.

Absolute discontinuity (e.g., hyperdispensationalism) maintains that nothing of the Old Testament legal material continues in force today and thus it is not binding on Christians. The first or old covenant has been rendered obsolete and has been replaced by the better new covenant (Heb. 8:6–13); thus, the stipulations and regulations of the Old Testament have been rendered null and void for Christians living in the new covenant. This position does not result in antinomianism—being without law—for Christians are governed by the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2; 1 Cor. 9:21). And none of this law of Christ is a carryover from the Old Testament and its laws, rules, and regulations. Though not a proponent of this view, Ryrie explains the discontinuity of the Mosaic law and the law of Christ according to the absolute discontinuity view:

All the laws of the Mosaic code have been abolished because the code has. Specific Mosaic commands which are part of the Christian code appear there not as a continuation of part of the Mosaic Law, or in order to be observed in some deeper sense, but as specifically incorporated into that code, and as such they are binding on believers today. A particular law that was part of the Mosaic code is done away; that same law, if part of the law of Christ, is binding.[33]

There is absolute discontinuity between the old and new covenants.

Moderate discontinuity (e.g., progressive dispensationalism), like the above position, holds to discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments, with this modification: the degree of discontinuity is significant but not total. Because God revealed himself and his truth through the Old Testament, any aspect of it continues to be true and thus binding for Christians, unless Christ and the New Testament either explicitly or implicitly abrogate or modify it. Aspects of Old Testament law that continue to be valid and thus in force for Christians include among others the Ten Commandments and the law of love (e.g., “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet. . . . You shall love your neighbor as your yourself”; Rom. 13:9)[34] as well as regulations regarding the sanctity of human beings created in the image of God (e.g., the prohibition against abortion that derives from Ex. 21:22–25). Aspects of the law whose validity has been either explicitly or implicitly abrogated include among others dietary restrictions (1 Tim. 4:3–4; Mark 7:19) and the rules governing the sacrificial system (Hebrews 8–10). Aspects of Old Testament law whose validity has been either explicitly or implicitly modified include among others the “fulfilled” commands regarding murder, adultery, and the like (e.g., “You have heard that it was said to those of old . . . But I say to you”; Matt. 5:17–48)[35] and Sabbath regulations (Rom. 14:5–9; Col. 2:16–17). The Old Testament laws that continue over into the New Testament and the Old Testament regulations that have been modified by the coming of Christ, when joined with the commands and prohibitions established by Jesus Christ and the New Testament, compose the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2; 1 Cor. 9:21). Though much of the Old Testament legal material has been explicitly or implicitly done away with, those aspects that are integrated into the law of Christ continue to exercise binding authority for Christians. There is moderate discontinuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Though the moderate continuity position and the moderate discontinuity position are mediating positions between the absolute continuity position and the absolute discontinuity position, the strong contrast between the two views must be appreciated: the former finds more continuity between the Old and New Testaments, while the latter finds more discontinuity between the two.

My personal position on this matter is moderate discontinuity (the position just described). This view will become particularly important and apparent when I address the issues of the origin of the church, the relationship between the church and Israel, and baptism.

I mentioned at the outset of my discussion on this issue that the various views on continuity and discontinuity also diverge in the area of Old Testament prophecy and the nature of the people of God. Generally speaking, proponents of the first two positions find a great degree of continuity between Israel—specifically, the Jews, the people of Israel—and the church, while proponents of the latter two positions find a great deal of discontinuity between these two groups.

From a continuity approach,[36] the Jewish people of the old covenant and Christians of the new covenant are both part of the “people of God,” with the church having replaced Israel, such that the Jews as a national people hold no special place in the salvific work of God, either now or in the future. Concerning how this latter idea dovetails with Old Testament prophecy, the continuity approach holds that some prophecies addressed the coming of the Messiah (e.g., Isaiah 53) and have been fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth (or will be fulfilled at his second coming); some have been forfeited by the Jews because of their refusal to recognize Jesus to be the Christ; and still others are now being spiritually fulfilled in the church (e.g., Amos 9:11–15 with Acts 15:15–17). However, no promise or prophecy of a national restoration of the Jews to the Promised Land of Israel awaits fulfillment in the future. A modification of this continuity position entertains the possibility of a future restoration of Israel.[37]

From a discontinuity approach,[38] the Jewish people of the old covenant and Christians of the new covenant are very distinct groups of the “people of God,” and the church has not replaced Israel; thus, the Jews as a national people will hold a special place in the salvific work of God in the future. Concerning how this latter idea dovetails with Old Testament prophecy, the discontinuity approach holds that some prophecies (e.g., Isaiah 53) addressed the coming of the Messiah and have been fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth (or will be fulfilled at his second coming); some have been forfeited by the Jews because of their refusal to recognize Jesus to be the Christ; and still others are now being partially fulfilled in the church (e.g., Jer. 31:31–34 with Heb. 8:8–13; Joel 2:28–32 with Acts 2:17–21).[39] Furthermore, and in contrast to these elements of Old Testament revelation, the discontinuity approach holds that the promises and prophecies of a national restoration of the Jews to the Promised Land of Israel (e.g., Deut. 30:1–10; Isa. 49:8–26; Zechariah 10) await a literal (physical) fulfillment in the future (as evidenced by Romans 11).

Again, my personal position on this matter is one of discontinuity (the position just described). This view will become particularly important and apparent when I address the issue of the inception of the church and its relationship to Israel.

Biblical Language: Prescription versus Description

A second methodological issue for the development of ecclesiology is one’s view of the normativity or cultural relativity of certain genres (e.g., narrative) and portions (e.g., Paul’s ad hoc letters to Timothy and Titus) of Scripture.[40] The issue becomes a linguistic one of prescription versus description. No one disputes that when Scripture offers prescriptive teaching for the church (e.g., Jesus’ instructions about church discipline; Matt. 18:15–20), these prescriptions must be incorporated into one’s ecclesiology and become normative for all churches. The line of division is drawn, however, between those who incorporate biblical descriptions of the church into their ecclesiology and insist that these elements are normative for all churches, and those who hold that, whereas such narratives describe the early church and its practice, and because of the descriptive (not prescriptive) nature of narratives, these elements may be incorporated into churches today but do not necessarily have to be incorporated. Putting this into question format and focusing on the narrative of Acts,

Should we take Acts as normative so that the church of all times should imitate the experiences and practices of the early church? Or should we read Acts as merely descriptive of what was valuable and inspiring in the early church, but not necessarily binding on us today? Without a doubt this is the most significant issue we face as we learn to interpret Acts. . . . The difficulty lies in knowing what is normative for the church today and what is not. On what basis should we make these decisions?[41]

In the one hermeneutical camp are those who take the descriptive narratives of Acts as normative: “Narrative often teaches more indirectly than didactic literature without becoming any less normative. . . . A proper doctrine of Scripture will not allow Acts to be subordinated to Paul simply because the one is narrative and the other didactic literature. Neither will it permit Paul to be subordinated to Acts because of an inherent preference by some for the phenomena of Acts (such as speaking in tongues).”[42] In addition to this appeal to the nature of Scripture, Osborne offers another reason for affirming the normativity of biblical narratives:

Moreover, I also oppose the current tendency to deny the theological dimension on the ground that narrative is indirect rather than direct. This ignores the results of redaction criticism, which has demonstrated that biblical narrative is indeed theological at the core and seeks to guide the reader to relive the truth encapsulated in the story. Narrative is not as direct as didactic material, but it does have a theological point and expects the reader to interact with that message.[43]

A final reason for holding to normativity is “the open-ended closing of Acts”:

An unresolved narrative was a literary device well known at the time, a means of keeping the narrative open for the readers’ involvement. . . . Thus, the summary of Paul’s unhindered yet imprisoned missionary activity in Rome (Acts 28:30–31), echoing the ideal Christian individuals and communities engaged in mission earlier in Acts and even that of Jesus (28:31), provides readers with the mandate to see their own potentially unstoppable mission as the resolution of the incomplete mission of Paul to Gentiles.[44]

Thus, the descriptive narratives of Acts are seen to be normative.

In the other hermeneutical camp are those who insist that description is not prescription: “The crucial hermeneutical question here is whether biblical narratives that describe what happened in the early church also function as norms intended to delineate what must happen in the ongoing church. . . . Our assumption, along with many others, is that unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is merely narrated or described can never function in a normative way.”[45] With respect to the book of Acts, this position means that, “We are to find doctrine that is already formulated elsewhere illustrated in the historical narratives. This is a generally valuable principle. The structure of Christian theology should be rooted in the theological exposition and prescription of Scripture and not derived from historical incidents (which, while factual, are not necessarily normative . . . ).”[46] Discussing another doctrine—that of the Holy Spirit—Bernard Ramm is even more specific: “To build a theology of the Holy Spirit primarily on the Book of Acts is contrary to the fundamental Protestant principle of interpretation: Scripture interprets Scripture. The great theology of the Holy Spirit is clearest in John’s Gospel and Paul’s letters. Here is where the great doctors of the church have built their doctrine of the Holy Spirit, and rightly so.”[47] Substituting the doctrine of the church for the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, Ramm’s viewpoint would encourage us to search elsewhere in Scripture—e.g., Matthew 16:13–20; 18:15–20; Paul’s letter to the Ephesians and his pastoral epistles—for the “clearest” theology about the church, and not in the book of Acts.

A modification of this perspective is the view that, though it is narrative genre, Acts may present normative instruction, and some of the book may be binding for churches today. How then does one decide what is and what is not normative? Fee and Stuart offer three principles “with regard to the hermeneutics of historical narrative”:

1. The Word of God in Acts that may be regarded as normative for Christians is related primarily to what any given narrative was intended to teach. 2. What is incidental to the primary intent of the narrative may indeed reflect an inspired author’s understanding of things but it cannot have the same didactic value as what the narrative was intended to teach. . . . 3. Historical precedent, to have normative value, must be related to intent. That is, if it can be shown that the purpose of a given narrative is to establish precedent, then such precedent should be regarded as normative.[48]

Similarly, Duvall and Hays offer several principles (including some overlap with Fee and Stuart) for determining what is normative and what is not in the book of Acts: (1) look for what Luke intended to communicate to his readers; (2) look for positive and negative examples in the characters of the story (e.g., the selection of Matthias to replace Judas; Acts 1:15–26); (3) read individual passages in light of the overall story of Acts and the rest of the New Testament; (4) look to other parts of Acts to clarify what is normative (e.g., giving away all of one’s possessions is not normative, according to 5:3–4); and (5) look for repeated patterns and themes.[49]

I affirm the general normativity of the book of Acts. Luke wrote it for the sake of Theophilus as a continuation of the first volume written for this same friend. Luke’s purpose was to tell the story of the birth, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (the Gospel of Luke) and the Holy Spirit’s work through the early disciples in initiating and building the church of Jesus Christ (Acts). Consequently, Acts is a thoroughgoing theological writing of narrative genre, Luke’s inspired presentation of the growth of the early church. The Holy Spirit, who spoke and acted so as to create, empower, direct, and expand the early church, and who inspired Luke to write the authoritative narrative of his (i.e., the Spirit’s) work, continues to speak and act today in the church through this canonical writing. Because of its inspiration and its inclusion in the canon of Christian Scripture, Acts is intended for the authoritative instruction of the church from its inception at Pentecost until the Lord returns in the future.

When I affirm the general normativity of Acts, I mean to indicate that the book as a whole presents authoritative instruction for the church to follow (with appropriate contextualization), but not each and every detail is normative for the church. That which is normative appears in the major themes of Acts, in the emphases that are repeated, in the patterns that are established through recurrence, in the highlights that are shown again and again. Acts 1:8 is an example of a major theme of the book: the Holy Spirit’s empowering propulsion of the church to spread the gospel throughout the entire world (confirmed in 6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 19:20).[50] The church today should be about this missional undertaking. Obedience to God rather than capitulation to wrongheaded human commands is an emphasis of the book (e.g., 4:13–22; 5:17–32; 6:8–7:60). The church will do well to have this same priority today. The apostolic preaching of the gospel—the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, together with an appeal for response resulting in the forgiveness of sins and the reception of the Holy Spirit—is a pattern that is established (e.g., 2:22–41; 3:11–26; 5:30–32; 10:34–43).[51] The church is to preach this gospel today. The impressive unity of the church is a highlight of Acts (e.g., 2:42–47; 4:32–37; threatened in 5:1–11; 6:1–7; 15:1–35). The church must strive to maintain and manifest this genuine unity today. In summary, as Thiselton notes:

Yet it would be rash to assume that the writings of Luke-Acts were other than formative for the wider church. Luke declares as a principle of continuity that the church continued to devote themselves “to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42). Where the patterns of the narrative reflect regularities in Acts, Luke appears to speak beyond a single nonrepeatable situation.[52]

Individual examples of people and events that appear in Acts are also helpful for the church today, though they may or may not be normative. Normativity applies in those cases in which Luke indicates explicitly or implicitly that the characters and activities are right and thus are to be emulated (e.g., the “noble” Bereans’ scrutiny of Scripture; Acts 17:10–12) or wrong and thus to be avoided (e.g., Ananias and Sapphira; 5:1–11).[53] Still, not everything is normative. Diversity in similar accounts weighs against normativity. For example, God’s blessing was on the disciples in the upper room because they were in accord with Scripture, chose candidates in accordance with high requirements, and prayed for God’s will in seeking to identify the proper replacement for Judas (Acts 1:15–26).[54] But their casting of lots does not become normative for the church in its decisions, because such a method is not found elsewhere in Acts when the church has to make important decisions (e.g., 6:1–7; 15). Also, the reception of the Spirit is part and parcel of what it means to become and live as a Christian (1:4–5; 2:38; 8:14–24; 9:17–19; 10:44–48; 11:15–18; 19:1–7), but the fact that on occasion this reception was delayed cannot be considered paradigmatic for a second blessing theology for Christians today, for Luke himself underscores the unusualness of these delays (8:16; 19:2).

In summary, by paying attention to Luke’s intent for the book as a whole and for each part of his writing, readers should note major themes, emphases, patterns, and highlights so as to identify the normative instruction from Acts. Normativity also applies in cases of individual characters and events when Luke indicates these are right and to be followed or are wrong and to be shunned. Diversity in details and other textual clues underscore details of the book that should not be raised to the level of normativity. By careful interpretation, Acts as narrative genre may be mined for its normative, authoritative theology for the construction of our ecclesiology.[55]

At the outset of the discussion of this second matter of methodology, I noted that this issue of language also involves one’s view of the normativity or cultural relativity of certain portions of Scripture; 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus were used as illustrations. The “problem” with these letters is that they are ad hoc in nature: they were addressed to particular situations faced by the early churches, situations that (1) at times are difficult to reconstruct (thus making interpretation of these letters more difficult), and (2) may or may not obtain in today’s churches (making application even more difficult).[56]

In part, proper interpretation entails careful reconstruction of the background of these letters, and right application entails making principled distinctions between cultural or time-bound elements and supracultural instructions in them. As for the first matter, judicious use of excellent commentaries can be very helpful in obtaining the background information needed for a proper interpretation of these letters. As for the second, Osborne is helpful in reminding us that this is not a matter of inspired versus uninspired and authoritative versus non-authoritative portions of Scripture; indeed, we are

. . . not establishing a canon within a canon (a set of superior commands) or distinguishing first-class from second-class passages. This is a matter of contextualization or application. The issue is not whether a passage is normative but whether the normative principle is found at the surface level (that is, supracultural) or at the principial level underlying the passage (with the surface situation or command applying mainly to the ancient setting). All biblical statements are authoritative; some, however, are so dependent on the ancient cultural setting that they cannot apply directly to today since there are no parallels (such as footwashing or meat sacrificed to idols). We need hermeneutical criteria to enable us to make such decisions on firm ground.[57]

Such hermeneutical criteria include the following: (1) We need to distinguish between what in these letters is essential and what is not essential; essential matters are supracultural and normative, nonessential matters are not, and we are to focus our attention and efforts on the essential matters. (2) We need to distinguish between matters that are inherently moral and those that are cultural; inherently moral matters are supracultural and normative, whereas cultural matters are not. (3) Within the letters themselves, we need to distinguish between principle and specific application; the principle is supracultural and normative (though the specific application may vary from culture to culture), whereas the application is culturally relative.[58]

To give some specific examples of these criteria at work: (1) Paul’s denouncement of sinful behavior (Titus 1:10–16) is directed at essential matters like insubordination, empty chatter, the pursuit of shameful gain, defiled conscience, and the like. Throughout Scripture, sin is treated seriously and is considered a core issue; such is the case in this section of the Bible. That these essential matters are interwoven with certain nonessential matters—Paul attaches some of this evil behavior to “the circumcision party” and “the Cretans”—must not be allowed to deflect the current church’s attention away from these sins. Such sins constitute core issues and must be exposed, denounced, and overcome by the church today. (2) The lists of qualifications for elders and deacons (1 Timothy 3) set forth the personal and spiritual characteristics for church leaders, and such moral qualities indicate that these requirements are supracultural and normative. Churches today must approve their officers on the basis of these normative qualifications. Paul’s concluding comments after these lists—“I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of truth” (1 Tim. 3:14–15)—reinforce the normativity of his instructions about church officers. (3) We can consider Paul’s instructions about women’s apparel in church (1 Tim. 2:9–10)[59] to include both principles (women should dress conscientiously, modestly, non-ostentatiously, and with fiscal responsibility) and specific applications (women should not braid their hair or wear gold or pearls). Women in churches today are to follow the supracultural, normative principles but are not obligated to abide by the specific applications Paul prescribed for his first-century audience. Practically, then, women in church today may braid their hair and wear gold or pearls because, given a reasonable expense, quantity, and quality, such a hairstyle and such apparel do not communicate disrespect and immodesty and do not draw inordinate attention to these women nor bankrupt the family budget.

In summary, I have attempted to offer some hermeneutical criteria for distinguishing between that which is supracultural and normative and that which is culturally relative in the ad hoc letters of the New Testament. Though no system is foolproof, and all approaches include a subjective element of assessment and a personal element of valuation, these principles should be helpful for churches today. They will also help in the construction of ecclesiology as it appeals to these writings.

Basic Approaches to Ecclesiology

A third methodological issue for the development of ecclesiology is one’s basic approach to the doctrine. At least three different approaches have been advocated. Simply expressed, these are functional approaches, teleological approaches, and ontological approaches.

The first approach, a functional ecclesiology, seeks to define and discuss the church in terms of its activities, roles, or ministries. Craig Van Gelder identifies six examples of functional approaches (together with the literature that proposes them): (1) a seeker-sensitive model, where the emphasis is on “conducting worship services shaped for evangelism of unchurched persons”;[60] (2) a purpose-driven model, where the purpose of the church is defined “around core functions” and intentional discipleship takes place;[61] (3) a small-group model, that “emphasizes making small groups the critical infrastructure for church life in complement with gathered celebrative worship”;[62] (4) a user-friendly model, where the emphasis is on “developing processes around key biblical principles that attract people into high commitment communities”;[63] (5) a seven-day-a-week model, where the emphasis is on “expanding group-based, weekday ministries as multiple points of entry into the life of the church”;[64] and (6) a church for the twenty-first century that emphasizes the development of the church “as a major anchor of ministry that can specialize in a variety of niche markets.”[65] Others could certainly be added to this list.[66] What all of these approaches have in common is their pragmatically influenced or functionally driven ecclesiology.[67]

Finding this functional approach to ecclesiology lacking an essential element, others take a second approach, a teleological ecclesiology, that attempts to define and discuss the church in terms of its telos, or purpose/goal. An example of this is Jonathan R. Wilson’s ecclesiology as set forth in Why Church Matters: Worship, Ministry, and Mission in Practice. His key point, developed from Alasdair MacIntyre, is that “practices cannot be isolated from the whole life of a community and the relationships internal and external to it. Nor can practices have meaning apart from the community’s conception of the telos toward which it is moving.”[68] Focusing on the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19–20, Wilson notes that “this commissioning gives the church its telos and makes it clear that certain activities embody that telos.”[69] He further expands on this idea, noting that the telos of the cosmos is “life in the kingdom and knowledge of Jesus Christ.”[70] Specifically, worship, witness, discipleship (including the exercise of church discipline), baptism, the Lord’s Supper, footwashing, the church’s confession of faith, and endurance of suffering are all essential practices of the church that fulfill its telos. This approach is an example of a teleological ecclesiology.

The third approach is an ontological ecclesiology that seeks to define and discuss the church in terms of its attributes or characteristics.[71] For an example of this approach, we may consider the historical attributes as affirmed by the early church in the Apostles’ Creed: “I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.” Unity, holiness, catholicity (or universality), and apostolicity were the four specific characteristics affirmed by the earliest Christians in their discussion and confession of the nature of the church. The key is to note that early church ecclesiology had a definite ontological orientation to it.

More recently, a turn from functionalist approaches to ontology as the basic approach to formulating the doctrine of the church can be detected; an example is Simon Chan’s ecclesiology. Interestingly, he indicates that one’s approach to ecclesiology—either a functional approach or an ontological approach—hinges on one’s answer to “the question of how the church is to be understood in relation to creation. Is the church to be seen as an instrument to accomplish God’s purpose in creation, or is the church the expression of God’s ultimate purpose itself?”[72] Chan asserts that giving the first answer leads to a functional approach to ecclesiology, while giving the second leads to an ontological ecclesiology: “If the church is essentially instrumental, then its basic identity can be expressed in terms of its functions: what it must do to fulfill God’s larger purpose. But if the church is God’s end in creation, then its basic identity can be expressed only in ontological rather than functional terms.”[73] Though I disagree with some of Chan’s characterization of the instrumentalist notion of the church, I find myself in far greater sympathy with that idea than with his notion of the church as a manifestation of God’s ultimate purpose itself; yet my approach is not primarily a functional one. Indeed, I concur with Chan’s statements that the church’s “basic identity is to be found not in what it does but in what it is,” and that “the role or function of the church grows out of its ontological status. . . . ”[74] However, I don’t follow him in considering the church to be “a divine-humanity” or in finding its ontological status “sometimes expressed in the concept of Mother Church, made famous by Cyprian: ‘He who has not the Church for its mother, has not God for his Father.’”[75] Thus, one’s approach—whether functional, teleological, or ontological[76]—to constructing the doctrine of the church does not depend (solely) on one’s decision about the church’s relation to creation.

My approach to formulating an ecclesiology is an ontological one. I concur with Erickson’s assessment that current culture and worldview, “with its widespread aversion to philosophy, and particularly to metaphysics and ontology, is far less interested in the theoretical nature of something than in its concrete historical manifestations. Thus, much modern theology is less interested in the essence of the church, what it ‘really is’ or ‘ought to be,’ than in its embodiment, what it concretely is or dynamically is becoming. . . . [The church] is not thought of in terms of its essence, but of its existence—an openly existentialist interpretation.”[77] I bemoan this development and join my efforts with others (like Chan) to reverse this trend. Questions regarding the nature of the church—its identity, its characteristics—are important so that we “know just what distinguishes the church as the church, or qualifies it to be called the church.”[78] My approach to ecclesiology, therefore, is an ontological approach.

At the same time, my presentation will not ignore the teleological and functional approaches to ecclesiology. As for the former, some of the attributes of the church include a certain directionality; that is, they are teleological in orientation. For example, the missional character of the church signifies that it moves centrifugally; the church (spatially) has a universal aim. This can be seen in Luke’s use of Jesus’ words to his disciples—“and you will be my witnesses . . . to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8)—as a programmatic statement for his writing, which writing continues to express and shape the missional telos of churches today. Furthermore, the eschatological dimension of the church indicates that it possesses a finality; the church (temporally) has an ultimate (or terminal) end. This comes into view most clearly in John’s apocalyptic vision of the new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21–22). In this final canonical scene, the church has finished its earthly pilgrimage and yielded its humble place to the New Jerusalem, which is “the holy city” (Rev. 21:10), and the exquisitely adorned “Bride, the wife of the Lamb” (v. 9).” Continuity with the penultimate reality of the church can still be observed—“the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (v. 14)—but this New Jerusalem is ultimate reality for all eternity. And it is toward this eschatological hope that the church moves. As this teleology is a part of the church’s nature and attributes, the teleological approach will be a factor in my ecclesiology.

So, too, will the functional approach be included, in this sense: from the nature of the church flow its ministries. This conviction will be seen in the fact that I discuss the identity—the characteristics—of the church toward the beginning of this book and conclude with a presentation of the church’s ministries.

Accordingly, I take an ontological approach to the construction of my ecclesiology, focusing first on identity markers of the church, while properly noting the teleological orientation of many of the church’s characteristics and while also deriving its function—its ministries and mission—from those attributes.

CONCLUDING QUESTION: IS ECCLESIOLOGY AN IMPORTANT DOCTRINE?

It seems fitting, before embarking on a lengthy study of the church, to raise a fundamental question: is ecclesiology an important doctrine?[79] If we were to engage in “theological triage” so as to rank Christian doctrines in their order of importance, a strong case could be made for assigning the highest rankings to the doctrine of God and the doctrine of Scripture. Another categorization reckons “the three gigantic doctrines of atonement, incarnation, and Trinity” as the most important because these and these alone are the “three great mysteries at the very heart of Christianity.”[80] Few, if any, would elevate ecclesiology to this first tier of doctrines.[81] The alternative, however, is not as bleak as J. C. Hoekendijk makes it seem: “In history a keen ecclesiological interest has, almost without exception, been a sign of spiritual decadence.”[82] Certainly, the earliest church creeds belie this notion: the expression “believe . . . (in) the church” in both the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and the Apostles’ Creed indicates significant (even though not supreme) weightiness for this theological belief.

Ecclesiology may not be a doctrine of highest importance, but it is nevertheless of great importance, for this simple reason: the church of Jesus Christ itself is a necessary reality. This fact propels the Christian doctrine devoted to the study of the church to a high level of prominence.

John Webster grounds the necessary character of the church in the gospel, explaining that “the existence of a new social order is a necessary implicate of the gospel of Jesus Christ”; hence, “the life of the Christian community is internal to the logic of the gospel [and not] simply accessory and accidental.”[83] He goes on further to ground the church in the doctrines of God and salvation. Specifically, he avers that the church “is ingredient within the divine economy of salvation.”[84] His argument is the following:

The revealed secret of God not only concerns the unfathomable majesty of God himself; it also concerns that human society which the triune God elects, sustains and perfects ‘to the praise of his glorious grace’ (Eph. 1.5). From this there emerge two fundamental principles for an evangelical ecclesiology. First, there can be no doctrine of God without a doctrine of the church, for according to the Christian confession God is the one who manifests who he is in the economy of his saving work in which he assembles a people for himself. Second there can be no doctrine of the church which is not wholly referred to the doctrine of God, in whose being and action alone the church has its being and action.[85]

Working from the doctrine of God, Webster starts with the ontological Trinity, specifically, the metaphysical greatness or perfection of God, which “is the repleteness of his life, the fullness or completeness of his being, the entirety with which he is himself. As the perfect one, God is utterly realized, lacks nothing, and is devoid of no element of his own blessedness.”[86] This perfection of God relates to both his life and his activity: “The perfection of God’s life is the fullness of unity and relation—that is, of love—which God immanently is as Father, Son, and Spirit. . . . [H]e is incomparably alive. The perfection of God’s acts is the pure completeness of the divine work.”[87]

From this discussion of the ontological Trinity, Webster moves to the economic Trinity: “But within that life and act there is a movement or turning ad extra, in which out of his own perfection God wills and establishes creatures.”[88] More specifically, this is a “movement in which the fullness of God is the origin and continuing ground of a reality which is outside the life of God; ‘outside,’ not in the sense of unrelated, but in the sense of having its own integral being as a gift rather than as an extension of God’s own being.”[89] Furthermore, this movement, “in which God wills and provides for free creaturely beings, is a necessary movement. It is not externally necessary; . . . rather, it is internally necessary because it flows from the eternal divine counsel to be himself”[90] in this movement. This movement, then, is one of holy love by which God “consecrates first by willing the creature, then by creating, by preserving the creature, by reconciling it to himself, and by directing it to its perfection.”[91] Finally, this movement is one of divine grace, which “is sovereignty directed to the creature’s well-being.”[92]

Webster draws out the implications of his discussion for ecclesiology: “In this . . . movement of holy love and grace, then, God’s perfection is actual as his determination for fellowship. It is this movement which is the ground of the church.”[93] Thus, he affirms the “necessarily derivative character” of the church as the society of those elected, called, redeemed, sanctified, and glorified in Jesus Christ.[94]

Webster’s grounding of the church in the gospel, the perfection of God, and the grace of salvation is quite a welcomed approach. For evangelicals who wish a more explicitly biblical approach, I think his presentation can be augmented.

The first augmentation focuses on the eternal counsel of God in redeeming fallen human creatures. In his rehearsal of the goodness of God, Paul assures us that the reason that Christians can count on God to be good to them in the midst of suffering and heartache is that the divine goodness has always surrounded and will always surround them (Rom. 8:28–30). Paul addresses the eternal counsel (foreknowledge, predestination) of the triune God with respect to fallen human beings who would be redeemed (called, justified) and eternally blessed (glorified) through being completely renewed and made eminent (“conformed to the image of his Son”) for the supremacy of Jesus Christ (“the firstborn among many brothers”). This redeemed community, therefore, is not an afterthought of divine adjustment, nor an accident of history; rather, it is part of the eternal purpose of God. Accordingly, from eternity past, the divine plan was never just to create human beings in an original state of integrity. The eternal divine counsel was rather to create such human beings, permit them to fall, provide atonement for sin through the crucified Son of God (who, as a “lamb without blemish or spot . . . was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times”; 1 Pet. 1:19–20), redeem sinners, and renew and glorify them forever. If the family image is specifically used here (“the firstborn among many brothers”), certainly the shadow of the redeemed community is not missing. If this is the case, then the church is part and parcel of the eternal purpose of the God who is good toward his redeemed human creatures.[95]

My second augmentation derives from Christology, specifically from the Father’s mighty work in regard to the exaltation of his humiliated and crucified Son. In Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, he prays that the church might grasp the immeasurable greatness of the Father’s power (Eph. 1:19–23). Among the several movements of the divine power listed in this passage, the one that attracts our attention is the Father’s subjection of everything to his Son and his giving of the Son as supreme head to the church, the body of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Father’s exaltation of the Son—whose incarnation, humiliation in suffering, death, and resurrection were the precursor to this stage of honoring him—entailed placing the Son as sovereign Lord over all things—in the angelic realm, the human sphere, this present age, and the eschaton. In this capacity of Lord over all, he was established by the Father as head of the church, his body. Now it could possibly be argued that this exaltation was part of the eternal plan of God and thus the church would become necessary as the body corresponding to its head. But it does not seem essential to make this argument, for even without it, the church as the body of Christ is still necessary for the post-incarnation, post-humiliation, post-crucifixion, and post-resurrection exaltation of the Son as Lord over all.

A third augmentation focuses on the eternal plan of God with regard to the revelation of himself and his ways. This point again appeals to Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (3:3–11) and notes that the apostle describes the church in relation to the plan of God. Within this eternal divine purpose for all things, “the plan of the mystery” (v. 9)—“that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (v. 6)—remained a divine secret until God revealed it. Paul’s engagement in ministry to the Gentiles is the occasion for bringing to light this mystery (vv. 7–8). Astoundingly, Paul adds that the church is an instrument by which this revelation of God’s eternal plan is made known. Furthermore, the testimony of the church is not directed to other human beings or human communities; rather, the church’s witness is borne to “the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places” (v. 10)—the angelic realm.[96] As already noted, Paul situates his entire discussion within the sphere of “the eternal purpose that he [God] has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord” (v. 11). As Calvin writes, “How carefully does he guard against the objection, that the purpose of God has been changed!”[97] The point is clear and well established: the church belongs within the eternal divine counsel as a means of divine revelation.

A fourth and final augmentation notes the church’s prominent role in prophetic Scripture. This point combines several prophetic elements. The first is Jesus’ promise to his disciples following Peter’s confession of his (Jesus’) identity: “On this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). As that which was promised by Jesus, the church is a necessary work of his. Furthermore, Jesus’ announcement to his disciples of his promise of the church is linked in the same narrative to another announcement to his disciples of his suffering, death, and resurrection on the third day (Matt. 16:21). It does not seem too far a stretch to say that Jesus’ mission of accomplishing salvation and of constructing the church is all of a piece. If this is the case, then the church becomes an ingredient in the Son’s mission to rescue humanity from sin. And Jesus himself prophesied the church and its role in the outworking of salvation.

This link is made even stronger and is warranted by an appeal to Scripture in a second prophetic element. At the conclusion of his Gospel, Luke presents some final instructions of Jesus for his disciples following his resurrection (Luke 24:44–49). Jesus tells them that he had to fulfill all that the Jewish Scriptures foretold about him. Specifically, this fulfillment included his suffering leading to death, his resurrection from the dead on the third day, and his disciples’ proclamation of the good news beginning in Jerusalem and extending throughout the entire world. Though it is anachronistic to insert the church at this juncture in Luke’s two-volume work,[98] that this proclamation of the gospel will be ecclesially rooted as well as ecclesially fruitful is the point the evangelist will make at the beginning of his second writing.

Indeed, in the opening chapter of Acts, Luke picks up this last theme (Acts 1:1–8) and narrates two additional stories: Jesus’ ascension (vv. 9–11) and the replacement for Judas (vv. 12–26). In this latter section we find a third prophetic element. Luke specifically notes those who were present in the upper room, waiting obediently for the coming of the Holy Spirit: “Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James” (v. 13). The “Twelve” are obviously lacking one of their members. Spokesman Peter announces that Scripture has to be fulfilled concerning the missing Judas. Not only was Judas’s demise in accord with Scripture (the citation is Ps. 69:25); the need to replace him with another qualified apostle was also biblically warranted (the citation is Ps. 109:8). Matthias is the one divinely chosen to replace Judas and, as Luke concludes, “he was numbered with the eleven apostles” (Acts 1:26), becoming a witness of the resurrection along with them (v. 22). This band of witnesses, waiting in Jerusalem for the baptism of the Holy Spirit, will be empowered to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ beginning in the holy city (Acts 2) and extending to the ends of the world (Acts 28). As the foundation of the church, their role must be seen as necessary (in fulfillment of Old Testament Scripture), and as they are the foundation of the church that emerges after Pentecost, the church becomes a necessary part of the divine plan to rescue both Jews and Gentiles.

The church, then, is necessary for several reasons: it is part and parcel of (1) the eternal purpose of God in redeeming his fallen human creatures; (2) the Father’s mighty work in regard to the exaltation of his humiliated and crucified Son; (3) the eternal divine counsel with regard to the revelation of himself and his ways; and (4) prophetic Scripture that assigns an important role to the church in the outworking of salvation. So as not to be misunderstood, I am advocating a necessity for the church that is derivative and instrumental, not causative and foundational. This contingent status does not, however, render the church accidental; on the contrary, its “necessarily derivative character” demands our incorporation into, participation in, and allegiance to the church of Jesus Christ.[99]

In conclusion, ecclesiology may not be a doctrine of highest importance like theology proper and bibliology, but it is nevertheless of great importance, for this simple reason: the church of Jesus Christ itself is a necessary reality. This fact propels the Christian doctrine devoted to the study of the church to a high level of prominence.

___________________

[1]Gary Badcock underscores this point, explaining that the doctrine of the church “occupies a unique place in the structure of theology. Much of what we proclaim in the Christian faith is either hidden from sight or related to events in the remote past or in the anticipated future . . . . However, the church is not like this. . . . [H]ere at least, something of what we say we believe in can be seen in space and time” (Gary D. Badcock, The House Where God Lives: Renewing the Doctrine of the Church for Today [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009], 8).

[2]For discussion of “preunderstanding” from an evangelical perspective, see Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, rev. and expanded ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 376–384; Anthony Thiselton, The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980), 103–114; William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Dallas: Word, 1993), 98–116.

[3]Indeed, throughout this book I will make regular reference to my Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011) for further reading in the historical development of the aspects of ecclesiology that I treat.

[4]The English word church derives from the Germanic languages whose focus on the Greek word κυριακός (kuriakos; “of the Lord”) yielded Kirche and Kirk. Romance languages, focusing on the Greek word ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia), yielded the Latin ecclesia and its derivatives chiesa (Italian), iglesia (Spanish), igreja (Portuguese), and église (French).

[5]By underscoring this contrast, I do not mean to imply that the uses of the term “church” in the following discussion are illegitimate. I only mean to emphasize that I will not use the term with those connotations.

[6]Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 8.2.

[7]Thus, we can speak of the one people of God consisting of different and distinguishable expressions, e.g., the old covenant people of Israel, and the new covenant people of the church.

[8]This element of the “rapture” holds true for any eschatological position: according to amillennialism, it is the terminal point of the millennial (= church) age and the transition to the new heaven and new earth as Christ returns; according to postmillennialism, it is the terminal point of the millennial age of progressive peace and righteousness on the earth and the transition to the new heaven and new earth as Christ returns; according to historic premillennialism, it is the event that closes out the great tribulation that immediately precedes the return of Christ to set up his millennial reign on earth; and, according to pretribulational premillennialism, it is the event that precedes the great tribulation removing the church from the earth for seven years prior to the return of Christ to set up his millennial reign on earth.

[9]According to Charles Hodge, “The ‘church’ is the company of the redeemed here and in heaven, which constitutes one body. . . . ” (Charles Hodge, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians [1878; repr., Charleston, SC: BiblioBazaar, 2008], 136).

[10]The nature of the relationship between the universal church and local churches is a matter of great debate; for a summary of the issues, see G. R. Evans, The Church and the Churches: Toward an Ecumenical Ecclesiology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 106–120. My own view expresses his perspective of the relationship as one of “mutuality”: “the local and particular, on the one hand, and the universal, on the other, are complementary and mutually dependent manifestations or expressions of the body of Christ” (ibid., 115).

[11]This affirmation does not mean that all redeemed people join themselves to a local congregation. For various reasons—e.g., disobedience, laziness, sickness, incarceration, lack of accessibility—some do not participate in a local church, and Christians who have come under church discipline are excommunicated, or expelled, from their church. Neither does the affirmation mean that local churches are composed solely of redeemed people. Non-Christians who are being moved by God toward salvation but who are not yet converted may participate in a church community, while other non-Christians, believing themselves to be genuine Christians, may be members of a local church.

[12]Because the universal church becomes manifested in local churches that possess these seven characteristics, it should come as no surprise that it is characterized by many of these same attributes.

[13]I acknowledge how unusual this approach is. The textbook assigned for my seminary theology course that treated ecclesiology (together with eschatology)—Robert L. Saucy’s The Church in God’s Program (Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1972)—and the class lectures on ecclesiology (from S. Lewis Johnson, at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1985) did not engage in a prolegomena to the doctrine of the church. Indeed, most ecclesiology books—e.g., James Bannerman, The Church of Christ: A Treatise on the Nature, Powers, Ordinances, Discipline, and Government of the Christian Church (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1868); D. Douglas Bannerman, The Scripture Doctrine of the Church Historically and Exegetically Considered (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1887); John L. Dagg, Manual of Theology, Second Part: A Treatise on Church Order (Charleston, SC: Southern Baptist Publication Society, 1859); Edmund Clowney, The Church: Sacraments, Worship, Ministry, Mission (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995); Earl D. Radmacher, The Nature of the Church (Hayesville, NC: Schoettle, 1996); David L. Smith, All God’s People: A Theology of the Church (Wheaton, IL: BridgePoint/Victor, 1996)—do not offer any prolegomena for their ecclesiology.

[14]Allison, Historical Theology, 32, 23. For further discussion, with a particular emphasis on how historical theology plays an important role for exegetical, biblical, systematic, and practical theology, see 32–33.

[15]Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 127.

[16]Vatican II, Dei Verbum, 9.

[17]Robert Reymond, “The Presbytery-Led Church: Presbyterian Church Government,” in Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity, ed. Chad Owen Brand and R. Stanton Norman (Nashville: B&H, 2006), 90.

[18]This position is what James White, who meshes a plurality of elders with a congregational polity, argues: coming “with a mandate that flows from [his] dedication to the sufficiency of the inspired Word,” White concludes, “the form of the local church, made up of elders and deacons, is not only God’s intention for the church, but . . . in the giving of these offices, the church is given everything she needs to accomplish what God intends for her to accomplish in this world” (James R. White, “The Plural-Elder-Led Church: Sufficient as Established—The Plurality of Elders as Christ’s Ordained Means of Church Governance,” in Perspectives on Church Government, 255, 258).

[19]Ordinal, Book of Common Prayer, preface (emphasis mine), http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1928/Ordinal.htm, accessed June 13, 2011.

[20]For further discussion, see Roger Beckwith, Elders in Every City: The Origin and Role of the Ordained Ministry (Carlisle, Cumbria, UK; and Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2003), 9–10.

[21]Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 25–26. Grenz’s first source was Scripture; second, historical theology; third, culture.

[22]Stanley J. Grenz, “Die begrenzte Gemeinschaft (‘The Boundaried People’) and the Character of Evangelical Theology,” JETS 45/2 (June 2002): 301–316. Grenz relied on Paul G. Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1994), 113–127. Though Grenz focused on the nature of evangelical theology and applied the discussion to the Evangelical Theological Society, Hiebert’s writing addressed missiological issues and, by extension, ecclesiology. It is this application that I make here.

[23]Grenz, “Die begrenzte Gemeinschaft (‘The Boundaried People’) and the Character of Evangelical Theology,” 306–307.

[24]For two concrete examples of how viewing the church not as a bounded set but as a centered set is becoming a hallmark of emerging/emergent/missional churches, see Ray S. Anderson, An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 190–195; and Alan Hirsch, The Forgotten Ways: Reactivating the Missional Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006), 237–240.

[25]Ralph Del Colle seems to concur with this approach (Ralph Del Colle, “The Church,” in The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology, ed. John Webster, Kathryn Tanner, and Iain Torrance [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007], 249–250).

[26]Gordon W. Lathrop is a leading liturgical theologian. He notes the task of liturgical theology: “It inquires into the meaning of the liturgy, to use the ancient name of the assembly for worship and its actions. As theology, as word-about-God, it does so especially by asking how the Christian meeting, in all its signs and words, says something authentic and reliable about God, and so says something true about ourselves and about our world as they are understood before God. Liturgical theology is ‘the elucidation of the meaning of worship,’ and as theology, it is ‘the search for words appropriate to the nature of God’” (Gordon W. Lathrop, Holy Things: A Liturgical Theology [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993], 3). The quotation in Lathrop is from another leading liturgical theologian: Alexander Schmemann, Introduction to Liturgical Theology (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1975), 14.

[27]Simon Chan, Liturgical Theology: The Church as Worshiping Community (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 48. As he rightly notes, the formula derives from an expression of Prosper of Aquitaine, a fifth-century monk, who said, legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi (“let the rule of supplicating establish the rule of believing”) (Jacques Migne, Patrologia Latina 51, col. 209; for further historical detail, see Geoffrey Wainwright, Doxology: The Praise of God in Worship, Doctrine, and Life [New York: Oxford University Press, 1980], 218, 224–227).

[28]Chan provides two helpful illustrations—one positive, one negative—of the way the formula, understood in terms of liturgy shaping theology, was influential in church history. In terms of a positive example, Chan points to “the early Christians’ practice of according worship to Jesus, which played a key role in later Christological doctrine.” In terms of a negative example, he points to “the promulgation of the doctrines of the immaculate conception of Mary (1854) and the assumption of Mary (1950) in the light of widespread liturgical practice as instances where scriptural norms have failed to have a decisive control over liturgical practices” (Chan, Liturgical Theology, 49). He closely follows the discussion in Wainwright, Doxology, 218–250.

[29]To take some examples from the actual administration of believer’s baptism: does the one to be baptized wear a white baptismal robe or shorts and a modest T-shirt? Must the one who baptizes be a pastor of the church, or might someone else (e.g., a parent of the teenager being baptized; the person who led the new convert to Christ) perform it? To learn how important and “sacred” these actual practices of baptism are for the church, try altering the elements of the ritual and observe how upset the congregation becomes!

[30]To take some examples from the actual administration of the Lord’s Supper: are the communion elements bread (leavened or unleavened?) and wine, little pieces of matzos (salted or unsalted?) and grape juice, or rice and sake? Must the one who officiates be a pastor of the church, or might someone else (e.g., a staff member or lay person) perform it? Again, to learn how influential these actual practices of the Lord’s Supper are for the church, try altering the elements of the ritual and observe how upset the congregation becomes.

[31]In this approach I concur with Wainwright’s assessment: “Protestantism characteristically emphasizes the primacy of doctrine over the liturgy. The phrase lex orandi, lex credendi is not well known among Protestants, but they would most easily take the dogmatic norm of belief as setting a rule for prayer, so that what must be believed governs what may and should be prayed” (Wainwright, Doxology, 251). See his entire chapter “Lex Credendi” (251–283) for a fine development.

[32]As Wainwright observes, “The specific task of the theologian lies in the realm of doctrine. He is aiming at a coherent intellectual expression of the Christian vision. He should examine the liturgy from that angle, both in order to learn from it and in order to propose to the worshipping community any corrections or improvements which he judges necessary” (ibid., 3).

[33]Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago: Moody, 1999), 305.

[34]The issue of the fourth commandment regarding the Sabbath provokes the only significant debate about the Decalogue between moderate discontinuity proponents and those who take a continuity approach.

[35]“Fulfilled” in the sense that Jesus offers his interpretation of these Old Testament rules and regulations for his disciples. In agreement with Douglas Moo’s discussion, I do not think Jesus fulfills the law (Matt. 5:17) in the sense of “giving it its real intended meaning in response to Jewish attempts to evade its full significance. . . . In the ‘antitheses’ of Matt. 5:21–48 Jesus does not simply reestablish the true meaning of the law as if he were simply exegeting the relevant OT texts.” Nor do I think that Jesus is extending the demands of the law “from the external to the internal (murder-hatred; adultery-lust).” Rather, Jesus explains that the Old Testament law is not to be abandoned—indeed, he insists that it must be taught—but it must be “interpreted and applied in light of its fulfillment by Christ.” His interpretation and application of Old Testament law—as seen in his teachings and throughout the rest of the New Testament—is authoritative for Christians of the new covenant (Douglas J. Moo, “The Law of Moses or the Law of Christ,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg [Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988], 204–206).

[36]Marten H. Woudstra, “Israel and the Church: A Case for Continuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity, 221–238; Clowney, Church, 53. Though Clowney seems to seek a balance between continuity and discontinuity, he clearly favors the former.

[37]From the Reformed perspective, Willem VanGemeren advocates for a hope for Israel based on a hermeneutic of progressive fulfillment (Willem A. VanGemeren, “Israel as the Hermeneutical Crux in the Interpretation of Prophecy,” in two parts: WTJ 45 [1983]: 132–144; and WTJ 46 [1984]: 254–297). What does it say about the state of this issue when, in a volume dedicated to the theological interpretation of the Old Testament, only a few brief comments on the church are to be found? (Kevin J. Vanhoozer, gen. ed., Theological Interpretation of the Old Testament: A Book-by-Book Survey [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008], 81, 231, 233–234). In a dictionary dedicated to the same approach, only one paragraph addresses the future of national Israel (Scot McKnight, “Israel,” in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005], 345).

[38]Robert L Saucy, “Israel and the Church: A Case for Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity, 239–259.

[39]Most proponents of discontinuity would acknowledge, in accordance with Acts 15:15–17, that the prophecy of the restoration of David’s fallen tent (Amos 9:11–15) is now being spiritually fulfilled in part in the church, but would add that this prophecy awaits its complete fulfillment with the restoration of the Davidic dynasty during the future millennial kingdom of Jesus Christ (Revelation 20).

[40]Because I have already treated the issue of continuity and discontinuity between the two Testaments, I will focus this current discussion on the normativity of the New Testament for ecclesiology.

[41]J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, Grasping God’s Word: A Hands-on Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 263.

[42]Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 349, 351.

[43]Osborne, Hermeneutical Spiral, 172. For some reason, this paragraph is not in the revised and expanded edition (2006), 220; cf. Craig S. Keener, Gift Giver: The Holy Spirit for Today (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002), 209–213.

[44]Graham H. Twelftree, People of the Spirit: Exploring Luke’s View of the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 10. Interestingly, hundreds of churches are associated with “Acts 29,” a network of church planting networks that emphasizes the ongoing nature of the book of Acts.

[45]Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982), 97 (emphasis his).

[46]Sinclair Ferguson, The Holy Spirit, Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1997), 84.

[47]Bernard Ramm, Rapping about the Spirit (Waco: Texas: Word, 1974), 113.

[48]Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 99.

[49]Duvall and Hays, Grasping God’s Word, 264–267.

[50]Indeed, many commentators note that Acts 1:8 is the programmatic verse for the entire writing.

[51]Doriani specifies, “The principle is clear: Where a series of acts by the faithful create a pattern, and God or the narrator approves the pattern, it directs believers, even if no law spells out the lesson” (Daniel M. Doriani, “A Redemptive-Historical Model,” in Four Views on Moving beyond the Bible to Theology, ed. Gary T. Meador [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009], 89).

[52]Anthony C. Thiselton, The Hermeneutics of Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 449.

[53]Reflecting on the genre of Acts in light of the literary conventions of Luke’s day, Twelftree affirms, “given that biographies were to be taken as model lives for readers to follow, it is likely that Luke’s descriptions of his heroes are intended to become prescriptions for his readers” (Twelftree, People of the Spirit, 10). Similarly, Vanhoozer speaks of “patterns of actions on the part of paradigmatic individuals” (Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “A Response to Daniel M. Doriani,” in Four Views on Moving beyond the Bible to Theology, 127).

[54]Those who believe that the disciples acted prematurely in choosing Matthias (they should have waited for Paul to be appointed an apostle, so the argument goes) have no support for their view from the narrative of Acts 1:15–26; indeed, Luke’s positive presentation of this deliberation compels us to acknowledge the rightness of the church’s choice.

[55]Graham Cole, my colleague in the Foundation of Evangelical Theology series, seems to hold a similar view (He Who Gives Life: The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2006], 206–207).

[56]This issue is different from the critical issues of authorship, date, audience, and the like. I will not attempt to deal with these issues but instead will refer readers to excellent evangelical commentaries on these letters.

[57]Osborne, Hermeneutical Spiral, 421.

[58]Some of this comes with modification from Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 66–69

[59]Peter has a similar list in 1 Peter 3:1–7.

[60]Presented in George Hunter, Church for the Unchurched (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996).

[61]Exemplified in Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995).

[62]Promoted by Carl F. George, Prepare Your Church for the Future (Tarrytown, NY: Revell, 1991).

[63]Championed by George Barna, User Friendly Churches (Ventura, CA: Regal, 1991).

[64]Exhibited in Lyle E. Schaller, The Seven-day-a-week Church (Nashville: Abingdon, 1992).

[65]Promoted by Leith Anderson, A Church for the Twenty-first Century (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1992).

[66]For example, the externally focused model, that emphasizes service to the community through partnerships with service organizations (Rick Rusaw and Eric Swanson, The Externally Focused Church [Loveland, CO: Group, 2004]; cf. Robert Lewis, The Church of Irresistible Influence: Bridge-building Stories to Help Reach Your Community [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001]). What concerns me is that critiques of “the North American evangelical church” (whatever that broad statement refers to) are commonly criticisms of its functions (e.g., its evangelism, leadership, worship, and preaching). What may be advocated in terms of a solution turns out to be little more than replacing certain methods of engaging in these functions (methods supposedly developed within modernity, such as CEO-style leadership structures and expository sermons) with new ways of doing them (ways allegedly developed within postmodernity [perhaps reclaimed from premodern orthodoxy], such as artistically beautiful worship and narrative-based preaching). If I am correct, and the functions of the church flow out of its nature, then an approach that replaces one set of functions with another set of functions while bypassing the more fundamental issue of the church’s ontology is insufficient and may only exacerbate the problem. For an example of this incomplete approach, see David E. Fitch, The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming the Mission of the Church from Big Business, Parachurch Organizations, Psychotherapy, Consumer Capitalism, and Other Modern Maladies (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005).

[67]At first blush, one might be tempted to include the churches of the Reformation because of their focus on the marks of the church. These activities purportedly distinguished the (false) Roman Catholic Church from the (true) churches (which would later come to be called Protestant churches). These marks were considered to be either two in number—the preaching of the Word of God and the administration of the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper—or three in number—with the exercise of church discipline being added to the first two marks. However, the Protestant churches of the Reformation period did not deny the basic ecclesiological orientation that affirmed that the church is “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.” Though they redefined these four historic attributes, the Reformation churches still affirmed them. At their core, therefore, the Reformation churches took an ontological approach to their ecclesiologies, adding the two or three marks so as to distinguish true churches that were one, holy, catholic, and apostolic (defined in a Protestant way) from the false church that made the same claim.

[68]Jonathan R. Wilson, Why Church Matters: Worship, Ministry, and Mission in Practice (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006), 12. Wilson particularly develops his notion of telos from MacIntyre’s presentation in Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theology, 2nd ed. (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984).

[69]Wilson, Why Church Matters, 17–18.

[70]Ibid., 92.

[71]Gary Badcock offers a fine response to a common critique of this approach as articulated by Nicholas Healy (Badcock, House Where God Lives, 1–8). He interacts with Nicholas M. Healy, Church, Word, and the Christian Life (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).

[72]Chan, Liturgical Theology, 21.

[73]Ibid.

[74]Ibid., 23–24.

[75]Ibid., 24.

[76]Craig Van Gelder, The Essence of the Church: A Community Created by the Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000), 22–23, adds another approach—organizational—to ecclesiology: “This organizational view defines the church in terms of its structures, procedures, and decision-making processes.” I wonder, however, if this approach is really an attempt to define the church. Van Gelder himself seems to suspect that this is the case: “An understanding of the church’s structural character is essential to a full view of the church, but this approach also leaves unaddressed some basic questions about the church’s nature” (23). Given this, I will not include organizational ecclesiology in my discussion.

[77]Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 1038–1040.

[78]Ibid., 1040. Thus, I disagree with Michael Jinkins and his hope that “perhaps we can move beyond the uninteresting question of essence (What is ‘church’? What are the qualities of ‘churchness’?) to some really interesting questions” (Michael Jinkins, The Church Faces Death: Ecclesiology in a Post-Modern Context [New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999], 78). And I believe that my approach, rather than describing an abstract concept of the church that bears little or no resemblance to actual churches and that flattens out the rich diversity of actual churches, provides an important basis for such entities to substantiate their claim to be genuine churches and not just amorphous religious organizations that have no right to the name (see Jinkins, Church Faces Death, 69–84).

[79]As Wolfhart Pannenberg points out, “It is not self-evident that the concept of the church should be a separate dogmatic theme. This was not the case either in the early church or in the Latin Middle Ages. Accepted as the content of faith and Christian teaching were the Trinitarian God, the creation of the world, its reconciliation by Jesus Christ, and the sacraments. The church did not form a separate theme in the systematic presentation of Christian doctrine until the fifteenth century. . . . The Reformers were certainly the first to introduce the doctrine of the church into dogmatics” (Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, trans. Geoffrey Bromiley [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998], 22).

[80]Fred Sanders, “Introduction to Christology: Chalcedonian Categories for the Gospel Narrative,” in Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective, ed. Fred Sanders and Klaus Issler (Nashville: B&H, 2007), 8.

[81]An exception would be the Roman Catholic Church, which links all theology with ecclesiology. To take the doctrine of the Trinity as an example: “To believe that the Church is ‘holy’ and ‘catholic,’ and that she is ‘one’ and ‘apostolic’ (as the Nicene Creed adds), is inseparable from belief in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (Catechism of the Catholic Church [New York: Doubleday/Image Books, 1995], 750). As the Presbyterian Louis Berkhof commented, “In Roman Catholic theology, however, the discussion of the Church takes precedence over everything else, preceding even the discussion of the doctrine of God and of divine revelation. The Church, it is said, has been instrumental in producing the Bible and therefore takes precedence over it; it is moreover the dispenser of all supernatural grace. It is not Christ that leads us to the Church, but the Church that leads us to Christ (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 4th rev. and enlarged ed. [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982], 553).

[82]J. C. Hoekendijk, “The Church in Missionary Thinking,” International Review of Mission 41 (1952): 325. Paul F. M. Zahl agrees, opining, “History teaches that interest in polity breaks the waves of the oceanic tide of Christian theology only when other, larger issues are no longer the presenting, absorbed ones. When polity and ecclesiology become absorbing questions for the church, you can bet we are in a time of a comparative stasis.” The larger issues to which he refers are justification, the presence of Jesus Christ in the Lord’s Supper, divine providence, predestination, and human free will. Certainly, these are monumental issues, though with regard to the Lord’s Supper, I would argue that the church would have been better off if it had never become absorbed with such a speculative matter (e.g., it was the one divisive point separating Protestant from Protestant at the Marburg Colloquy). Regrettably, Zahl does not indicate any specific historical period in which ecclesiology and polity overtook these other weighty issues (Paul F. M. Zahl, “The Bishop-Led Church: The Episcopal or Anglican Polity Affirmed, Weighed, and Defended,” in Perspectives on Church Government, 210–211).

[83]John Webster, “On Evangelical Ecclesiology,” Ecclesiology 1/1 (2004): 9. I would provide biblical warrant for Webster’s assertion by appealing to Luke’s narrative structure in Acts 2: following his account of the descent of the Holy Spirit and its explanation (2:1–21), Peter’s announcement of the gospel (2:22–36), and the crowd’s response (2:37–41), Luke concludes with a snapshot of these first Christians meeting in the temple and gathering in homes (2:42–47). Taking this narrative as all of a piece, we understand that incorporation into the church is part and parcel of the gospel and its reception.

[84]John Webster, Word and Church: Essays in Church Dogmatics (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2001), 193, 195.

[85]Ibid., 195. Webster’s reference to Ephesians 1:5 should be 1:6 instead.

[86]Webster, “On Evangelical Ecclesiology,” 12–13.

[87]Ibid., 13.

[88]Ibid.

[89]Ibid., 17.

[90]Ibid.

[91]Ibid.

[92]Ibid., 18.

[93]Ibid.

[94]Ibid., 10.

[95]Badcock, House Where God Lives, 26.

[96]Marcus Barth, Ephesians 1–3: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 34 (Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1974), 363–364.

[97]John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, trans. William Pringle (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005), 256.

[98]Though others, like Twelftree, would affirm the church’s existence at this point (Twelftree, People of the Spirit, 16, 28).

[99]Webster, “On Evangelical Ecclesiology,” 10.

CHAPTER

TWO

THE CHURCH OF THE NEW COVENANT

THE CONCEPT OF THE CHURCH

In chapter 1, I defined the church as the people of God who have been saved through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ and have been incorporated into his body through baptism with the Holy Spirit. I further explained that the church consists of two interrelated elements, the universal church and local churches, with the former (at least its living members) becoming manifested (by Christ, its head, and the Spirit) and manifesting itself (through Christians associating themselves with one another) in the latter. In the first part of this chapter, I will provide warrant for this concept of the church; then, I will address the type of covenantal relationship that exists between God and the church.

In developing the concept of the church, a consideration of all that Scripture affirms about the church must be undertaken, examining in context the biblical passages that contain the word ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia) as well as the passages that address the church not by using the word ekklēsia but through narratives, apostolic exhortations, and the like. Two examples of this latter point are Acts 2:42–47, Luke’s narrative of the initial phase of the church of Jerusalem, and Acts 8:4–13, the story of the conversion of the Samaritans through the preaching of Philip. In neither passage does the word ekklēsia appear, but certainly the narratives describe the founding of the church of Jerusalem and the start of the church in Samaria. When all the biblical affirmations are considered, two main elements of the concept—local churches and the universal church—come to the forefront. A third element—the “heavenly” church—is also present (e.g., Heb. 12:18–24), but discussion of that aspect will be postponed until I develop the eschatological characteristic of the church and address its heavenly dimension in proper context.

By far the most common referent of the New Testament’s presentation of the church is gatherings of Christians, or local churches. Specifically, these gatherings may be part of the church in a particular city that assembles regularly together in members’ houses—for example, the house of Prisca and Aquila (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19), the house of Nympha (Col. 4:15), Philemon’s house (Philem. 2),[1] and Mary’s house (Acts 12:12). These smaller gatherings were called churches, but so were the whole church gatherings (1 Cor. 11:17, 18, 20, 33; e.g., the “whole church” that Gaius hosted, Rom. 16:23), possibly a reference to the “city” churches from which these assemblies were distributed: “the church of the Thessalonians” (1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1) or “the church of God that is in Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:1–2; cf. 2 Cor. 1:1). These assemblies constitute solid support for the concept of the church as “local churches.”

The New Testament presents a second element in the concept of the church, which is often categorized under the heading “universal church,” consisting of all Christ-followers throughout the world. Several passages of Scripture constitute support for this element. Jesus promised to build his church (Matt. 16:18), a reference not to any particular assembly but to the fruit of his universal mission. Paul refers to this concrete reality composed of all Christians throughout the world when he describes the church as the body of Christ who, as the exalted sovereign head over all things, has been given by God to be the head of the church (Eph. 1:21–23). Here, the church cannot refer only to a particular, local church; rather, the church as the body of its universal head must be the entity commonly called “the universal church,” composed of all Christ’s followers in all places. It was for this universal church that Jesus died (Eph. 5:25); he was not crucified for a particular local assembly (though his followers in that church would certainly be included in his cross work). Presently, Christ is sanctifying, nourishing, and cherishing this universal church (vv. 26, 29). Furthermore, he will one day present this universal church “to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish” (v. 27). This hope belongs to all of his followers in all places, who will at his return be united and gathered together around Jesus the head of the body—the bridegroom with his spotless, holy bride.

More evidence can be marshaled for this universal aspect of the church. Paul referred to the church that he once persecuted without any particular emphasis on its identity as the church in Jerusalem (1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13; Phil. 3:6). Indeed, Luke rehearses the blessing of God (peace, edification, comfort, multiplication) that came upon “the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria” as a result of the cessation of Saul’s persecution (Acts 9:31). Of what or whom did this church consist? Part of it was the scattered “church of Jerusalem” members (most of whom were Jewish Christians; see Acts 8:1). Another part was the newly converted Samaritan believers (as recounted in Acts 8:4–13). Accordingly, “the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria” refers to a regional entity, one that does not assemble all together but consists of the Jewish and half-Jewish Christians in that geographical area.[2] Moreover, Paul ordered that no offense should be given “to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God” (1 Cor. 10:32). He does not refer to a local church but to people, as the first two terms of the imperative refer to the Jewish people (those descended from Abraham) and to the non-Jewish people. Certainly, the assembly of the Jews is not in view here, nor is the assembly of the Gentile people; indeed, it is hard to imagine what such assemblies could be. Accordingly, the church in this context refers to people from both a Jewish and a Gentile background who are characterized by something new and unique—being in Christ—that distinguishes them as the people who are the church. As Peter O’Brien notes, “Most commentators interpret these references [as] . . . of ‘the church universal, to which all believers belong’ and which is scattered throughout the world.”[3]

Breaking with tradition, O’Brien criticizes this idea because “the term ekklesia can no longer have its usual meaning of ‘gathering’ or ‘assembly’, since it is difficult to envisage how the world-wide church could assemble, and so the word must be translated in some other way to denote an organization or society.”[4] Two problems arise with his criticism. First, he illegitimately restricts the semantic range of the term so as not to allow a meaning other than its “usual” one.[5] Second, he fails to consider that the term could be used to refer to a church that, as a local gathering or assembly, has characteristics different from those that the church has when that term is used in reference to a different reality.[6] The fact of the matter is that the New Testament uses ekklēsia in reference to a particular group of Christians who indeed gather together in some locality, engage in worship, are led by pastors, baptize and administer the Lord’s Supper, and so forth. At the same time, the New Testament also uses ekklēsia when referring to another entity: the church for which Christ died, which is his body, which he is building, which he is expanding throughout the world, and which along with the Jews and Gentiles deserves respect. It is this element of the concept of the church to which reference is made in such current statements as “the church in Islamic lands is suffering persecution” or “the church in many developing nations is experiencing unprecedented conversions.”

Accordingly, these passages of Scripture lead to the conclusion that the concept of the church consists of two elements: local churches and the universal church. Moving beyond the concept of the church, the next section addresses the type of covenantal relationship that exists between God and the church.

THE CONCEPT OF COVENANT

In one sense, from the created order to human beings, every relationship in which God has been engaged has been structured according to some type of covenant. Translating the Hebrew word berith, a covenant may be defined as the following: “A berith is an enduring agreement which establishes [or formalizes] a defined relationship between two parties involving a solemn, binding obligation to specified stipulations on the part of at least one of the parties toward the other, which is taken by oath under threat of divine curse, and ratified by a visual ritual.”[7] Scripture features several such covenants, all of which possess common characteristics: covenants (1) are unilateral (established by God and God only); (2) create or formalize a structured relationship between God and his covenant partners; (3) feature binding obligations; and (4) involve covenantal signs or the swearing of oaths.

COVENANTS THAT WERE OPERATIVE BEFORE CHRIST

Several covenants were in place long before the time of Christ. One such covenant is that which God established with Adam and the creation.[8] The narrative of Genesis 1–3 recounts this covenant; confirmation is found in Genesis 6–9 and Hosea 6:7.[9] This Adamic covenant or covenant of nature (1) is unilateral, being established by God the Creator of the creation in general (Gen. 1:1–25) and of the first human beings (1:26–27), Adam (2:7) and Eve (2:18–25), in particular. It (2) creates a structured relationship between God and his covenant partners, both the created order and people, and (3) features binding obligations. These responsibilities are the so-called “cultural mandate” for human beings in relation to the created order (Gen. 1:28) and the Edenic stipulation (2:16–17). The fourth element, signs or the swearing of oaths, is not present, perhaps due to the fact that, first, God creates the covenant partners themselves[10] and, second “in a world not invaded by sin, there would be no need for adding oaths to commitments.”[11]

A second covenant, described in Genesis 6–9, is the Noahic covenant. This covenant is established between God and Noah, his wife, his three sons, their wives (Gen. 6:8–10, 18–22), and Noah’s offspring after him (9:9), as well as with “every beast of the earth” (v. 10). The covenant specifies that God will never again destroy these creatures and the earth by flood (v. 11). This covenant (1) is unilateral, being established by God the destroyer of the exceedingly wicked human race and the world in which it dwelt (6:5–7, 11–13, 17); (2) it creates a structured relationship between God and his covenant partners (who are described above); and (3) it features binding obligations. These responsibilities include, on God’s part, a promise to “never again curse the ground because of man” nor to “ever again strike down every living creature” (8:21) and, on the part of Noah and his sons, the same mandate of the Adamic covenant, to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (9:1). Finally, (4) the sign of the covenant, the “bow in the cloud” (the “clouds” threaten “waters” that become a “flood”; 9:13–15), serves as a reminder of “the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth” (v. 16).

The Abrahamic covenant, set forth in Genesis 12–17, is established between God and Abraham. It features the divine purpose to make of the patriarch a great nation, to bless him, and to make his name great so that he would be a blessing to those who bless him and a curse to those who dishonor him; thus, in Abraham “all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen. 12:2–3).[12] This covenant (1) is unilateral, established by God who, as “a smoking fire pot and a blaming torch” (15:17), passed between the pieces of cut animals—a heifer, a female goat, and a ram—and a turtledove and a pigeon (15:9–10) while “a deep sleep fell on Abraham” (15:12). The covenant (2) creates a structured relationship between God and his covenant partners (Abraham and his innumerable offspring; 15:5), and (3) features binding obligations. These responsibilities include the above divine promise, which receives further detailing: Abraham and Sarah would have a son, Isaac, through whom the promise of offspring would come (17:15–21); these offspring would become “a multitude of nations” led by kings (17:5–6); and Abraham’s offspring would inherit the land of promise, though possession of it would follow about four centuries of enslavement in Egypt (15:13–21). God further directs a binding obligation on Abraham and his covenant people, which also becomes (4) the sign of the covenant: “Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. . . . Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant” (17:10–14).

The most familiar covenant expressed in the Old Testament is the old, or Mosaic, covenant, presented in Exodus 19–24.[13] God establishes this covenant with the massively expanded beneficiaries of the Abrahamic covenant; liberated from Egypt by the mighty hand of God, they are poised at Mount Sinai/Horeb on the brink of the Promised Land (Ex. 19:1). This covenant (1) is unilateral, established by God in his address to Moses as representative of the people, and (2) formalizes a structured relationship between God and them, as God himself expresses: “if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (19:5–6). It (3) features binding obligations, including the Ten Commandments, the most noted of the old covenant laws (20:1–17), but certainly not limited to these, as seen in the many laws that follow the ten (20:22–23:19). Finally, (4) Moses and the people, the recipients of the old covenant, swear an oath to obey its binding stipulations: “All the words that the LORD has spoken we will do” (24:3). The Mosaic covenant is solemnized by the writing of the words of God; the building of an altar to the Lord; the offering of sacrifices, with part of the blood of the covenant being thrown on the altar; the reading of the book of the covenant and another affirmation by the people (“All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient”; 24:7), followed by the rest of the blood of the covenant being thrown on the people (vv. 4–8). Finally, God himself promises to give Moses the tablets of stone on which God has written “the law and the commandment” (24:12–18), and this act does indeed take place (31:18; 32:15–16).

Due to the abject failure on the part of the people of Israel to uphold their terms of the Mosaic covenant, a renewal of it becomes necessary. Deuteronomy rehearses the “second” (Greek, deuteros) giving of the “law” (Greek, nomos): “These are the words of the covenant that the LORD commanded Moses to make with the people of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant that he had made with them at Horeb” (Deut. 29:1). Like the initial ratification of the Mosaic covenant, this covenant renewal calls for obedience on the part of the people. Indeed, blessing for obedience is promised, but so too is cursing for disobedience (Deut. 28; 29:9–29; 30:11–20). Poignantly, in the midst of the rehearsal of the covenant renewal, Moses addresses a tragic scenario:

And when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the LORD your God has driven you, and return to the LORD your God, you and your children, and obey his voice in all that I command you today, with all your heart and with all your soul, then the LORD your God will restore your fortunes and have mercy on you, and he will gather you again from all the peoples where the LORD your God has scattered you. . . . And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. (Deut. 30:1–3, 6)

Moses foresees a future apostasy of the people of Israel of such proportions that God himself will banish them to every corner of the world—a punishment promised for their disobedience to his covenantal stipulations. By contrast, the postexilic scenario is bright, yet this hopeful future is phrased in terms of a circumcision of the heart of the people to cause them to obey. As will be seen, this phraseology is new covenant language. What is significant here is that the old covenant itself anticipates a time in which it will fail and will be replaced by a new arrangement with God.

A final covenant that becomes operative before Christ is the Davidic covenant, recounted in 2 Samuel 7. This covenant (1) is unilateral, established by God, as evidenced by the rehearsal of what God has done for David (vv. 8–9) and by David’s prayer to God (vv. 21, 25, 27–28). It (2) formalizes a structured relationship between God and his covenant partner “David,” of whom four referents are in view in this covenant—king David himself; the immediate offspring of David, Solomon; the descendants of David, the Davidic kings of Israel; and an eternal Davidic king, Jesus Christ. Elements in this covenant relationship include, for “David,” making his name great (v. 9); giving him a stable land with peace from enemies (vv. 10, 11); and establishing an everlasting house, an everlasting kingdom, and an everlasting throne upon which a son of God will reign (vv. 14–16). As this last phrase indicates, this covenant relationship is one of father and son: “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you” (vv. 14–15). These verses also spell out (3) the covenant’s binding obligations: the Davidic covenant is made such that “David” is to be the recipient of God’s gracious gifts based solely on God’s good pleasure and blessing (v. 29).[14] In accordance with the everlasting nature of the covenant, not even King David’s atrocities—adultery with Bathsheba, murder of her husband Uriah—can invalidate the divine promise (2 Samuel 11–12).[15] At the same time, “David” has covenant obligations to fulfill, as seen in King David’s charge to his son Solomon, who will be the next Davidic king (1 Kings 2:4; cf. Ps. 132:11–12). As God through the psalmist swears,

My steadfast love I will keep for him forever, and my covenant will stand firm for him. I will establish his offspring forever and his throne as the days of the heavens. If his children forsake my law and do not walk according to my rules, if they violate my statues and do not keep my commandments, then I will punish their transgression with the rod and their iniquity with stripes, but I will not remove from him my steadfast love or be false to my faithfulness. I will not violate my covenant or alter the word that went forth from my lips. Once for all I have sworn by my holiness; I will not lie to David. (Ps. 89:28–35)

Thus, “the covenant will only be fulfilled not by a faithful father alone (i.e., Yahweh keeping his promises), but also by a faithful son (i.e., the obedience of the king to Yahweh’s Torah).”[16] As Psalm 89:28–35 indicates, (4) God himself swears an oath to uphold the Davidic covenant based on his own faithfulness and holiness.

What is the relationship between these covenants? Though my main point in this survey of covenants does not depend on the answer to this fiercely debated question, I propose the following: (1) The Adamic covenant or covenant with the creation establishes the structured relationship between God and his human creatures in the created order. This covenant fails as a result of human sin, which ruinously affects not only its primary covenant partners—Adam and Eve—but the created order as well (Genesis 3). The tragic effects of this broken covenant reach a crescendo when, grieved by the utter fallenness of his creation, God destroys not only all human beings (except Noah and his family) but most of the living animals as well (Genesis 6–8). (2) The Noahic covenant is in one sense a new covenant, yet it has such striking reminiscences of the Adamic covenant that it may also be seen as a renewal of that original covenant with the creation. At the very least, there is strong continuity between the two. As for the race of human beings that emerges after the catastrophic flood, nothing has changed; the divine assessment of the situation after escape from destruction, as before the deluge, was “the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Gen. 8:21). Nonetheless, God intends to be merciful to his new creation, and thus makes the Noahic covenant (Gen. 8:20–9:17).

(3) The Abrahamic covenant follows, and it specifies the means God intends to use to fulfill the Adamic/Noahic covenant(s): he will take one man, Abraham, and will multiply a particular people through him so as to bring blessing to “all the families of the earth” (Gen. 12:3). (4) The Mosaic covenant, or old covenant, was intended to instruct the particular descendants of Abraham about how to live in covenant relationship with God; it was a specific expression for a particular time for the chosen people of Israel. Interestingly, the old covenant is never referred to as an everlasting covenant, as are the Noahic covenant (Gen. 9:16; Isa. 24:5), the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 17:7, 19; Ps. 105:10; 1 Chron. 16:17), the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7:25; 2 Chron. 13:5), and the new covenant (Isa. 55:3; 61:8; Jer. 32:40; 50:5; Ezek. 16:60; 37:26). This fact will come into play shortly.

A key instruction of the Mosaic covenant described the future nation of Israel as being ruled by a king (Deut. 17:14–20) who is to copy, read, and obey the law of God (Torah; vv. 18–19), an element that is picked up in the next and final covenant. (5) The Davidic covenant extends the Abrahamic covenant, specifying that the blessing of God will come through the line of “David.” Much overlap exists between the two: the promise of a great name, the promise of security in the land, the promise of offspring, the eternal nature of the covenants, and other elements. The key difference is the narrowing of the Abrahamic promise of being a blessing to the nations to the covenant “king,” who must also be an obedient king or “son” (vv. 18–19). Though all the kings of Israel failed to uphold their obligation of covenant obedience to God, the Old Testament hope of a future Davidic covenant–obeying “king” and “son” resounds (e.g., 2 Chron. 6:14–17, 41–42; Ps. 132:8–18) and echoes (e.g., Isa. 9:6–7; 11:1–10; 55:3–5) until it is fulfilled in the Messianic King Jesus, the Son of God incarnate.

Having established the fact that every relationship in which God has been engaged—whether that relationship is with the created order or with human beings—has been structured according to some type of covenant, the obvious question that is raised is, in what type of covenant relationship is God engaged with the church? I will argue that the church relates to God through the new covenant.

THE CHURCH OF THE NEW COVENANT

As the revelation of God and his ways progressively unfolds in the Old Testament, three themes become more pronounced. First, the Mosaic covenant is a failure (because of the people of Israel’s sin) and will one day become obsolete. Second, the old covenant will be replaced by a new covenant. Third, this new covenant will be associated with a fresh, new, unprecedented outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Weaving these three themes together, I will argue that they establish the new covenant as the covenant through which the church relates to God.

The first two themes are already hinted at as the Mosaic covenant is being renewed, as seen above (Deut. 30:1–10). This revelation is made explicit by Jeremiah (Jer. 31:31–34), who prophesies a future era characterized by a new covenant relationship between God and his people Israel. This covenant will be superior to its predecessor—not that the old covenant itself was inherently worthless, but its provision for cursing had moved front and center because of the disobedience of the people; they broke the Lord’s covenant with them. The improved new covenant will finally mean that God will be God to his people, and the people will be the people of God—the arrangement intended and envisioned by the old covenant, but which tragically never materialized. In this new covenant, the divine law will be inscribed on the hearts of the covenant people, who will all have personal, intimate knowledge of the Lord, who will himself decisively deal with their problem of sin through forgiveness.

The prophet Ezekiel continues and heightens this expectation. God promises to restore his people Israel not for their sake, but for the sake of his name—the very name they had profaned among the nations to which they had been banished because of entrenched disobedience. Again, this was precisely the fate to which the people would be consigned according to the old covenant’s provision for disobedience. But Ezekiel looks forward to the dawning of a new relationship with God (Ezek. 36:24–27). Similar elements are found in Ezekiel’s vision as appear in Jeremiah’s prophecy of the new covenant: forgiveness of sin (now, metaphorically presented as sprinkling with clean water and cleansing from filth, specifically, idolatry) and a renewal of the people’s heart (now, the giving of a new heart/a heart of flesh in place of the heart of stone). A new element—which is our third theme—is the promise of an unprecedented work of the Holy Spirit, who will indwell the people of God and cause them to obey instead of disobey.

The prophet Joel picks up similar language and expands on this third theme and promise of a future, unprecedented outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Looking hopefully toward a new restoration of the people of God, and calling them to repentance before the day of the Lord, Joel prophesies (the Lord speaking): “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even on the male and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit” (Joel 2:28–29). Certainly, the old covenant work of the Holy Spirit was essential for saving, purifying, guiding, and sanctifying the people of God. His ministry was particularly pronounced among the leaders of Israel: judges, kings, and prophets. The Spirit would stir up the judges and enable them to defeat the enemies of Israel, under whom the people were languishing because of their persistent disobedience (e.g., Othniel, Judg. 3:7–11; Ehud, 3:12–30; Gideon, 6:1–7:25; Jephthah, 10:6–9 with 11:29–33). Moreover, the Spirit would come upon the kings, anointing and empowering them to lead the people of Israel (e.g., King David; 1 Sam. 16:13). Interestingly, this anointing of the Spirit could be—and indeed was—withdrawn because of a king’s persistent disobedience (e.g., King Saul; 1 Sam. 16:14). Furthermore, the Spirit would speak through the prophets (Ezek. 2:1–7; Mic. 3:8; 2 Pet. 1:19–21). Despite this impressive ministry of the Holy Spirit, Joel’s prophecy anticipates a fresh, future, unprecedented outpouring of the same Spirit that would significantly eclipse his old covenant work. Indeed, the Spirit would be poured out on all people: men and women, young and old, slave and free.

From the perspective of the Old Testament, then, the Mosaic covenant is a failure and will one day become obsolete, being replaced by a new covenant. In addition, a new, future, unprecedented outpouring of the Holy Spirit will be associated with this new covenant relationship between God and his people.

Turning to the New Testament, this anticipation is continued and heightened by both John the Baptist and Jesus. As John engages in his prolific ministry at the Jordan River, he expresses his anticipation:

As the people were in expectation, and all were questioning in their hearts concerning John, whether he might be the Christ, John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” (Luke 3:15–17)

John the Baptist associates the Old Testament expectation of a fresh, unprecedented outpouring of the Holy Spirit with the coming of the Messiah (who, as it turns out, is already in the midst of his people). As the one who would baptize people with the Holy Spirit (John 1:33), the Messiah would inaugurate the fulfillment of Old Testament hopes.

As the Messiah himself, Jesus also continues and heightens the Old Testament anticipation of a new work of the Spirit. As the Gospel of John recounts,

On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. (John 7:37–39)

For the people in his audience, who would have been accustomed to experiencing the reality described in this passage upon their conversion to Christ (“those who believed in him”), John provides an editorial explanation of why this experience of the Holy Spirit was still future (“were to receive”) at the time when Jesus uttered these words: this outpouring of the Holy Spirit as “rivers of living water” awaited the glorification—the death, resurrection, and ascension—of Jesus. Because “Jesus was not yet glorified” at that time, the experience described by Jesus was still future. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit was still to come from the standpoint of this time, “for as yet the Spirit had not been given,” that is, given in his post-Pentecost ministry.

Later in John’s Gospel, Jesus addresses his disciples and teaches them about the Holy Spirit who is still to come: “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you” (John 14:16–17). Jesus’ promise of a new coming of “another Helper” does not mean that the disciples are unacquainted with the Holy Spirit; indeed, Jesus assures them that the Spirit “dwells with you.” At the same time, he continues the Old Testament expectation that the Spirit “will be in you.” As the prophets foretold, Jesus confirms a future, unprecedented, intimate relationship between the Holy Spirit and the disciples of Jesus. As before, though, this is still a future anticipation, not yet a reality.

After his death and resurrection Jesus provides the last installment of his instruction about the Holy Spirit. Again, he continues and heightens the Old Testament expectation of a new, unprecedented outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Luke concludes his Gospel with the following words of Jesus to his disciples:

Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” (Luke 24:44–49)

The disciples of Jesus are to take part in fulfilling the prophetic trajectory of the Old Testament concerning the proclamation of salvation to all the peoples of the world. But they are not quite ready to embark on their mission; they lack an essential component: “the promise of [Jesus’] Father” to be sent upon them so as to clothe them “with power from on high.” Given this situation, the disciples are to wait in the city of Jerusalem.

Linking this closing narrative with the opening narrative in his second book, Luke continues: “And while staying with them he [Jesus] ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, ‘you heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now’” (Acts 1:4–5). As he had done before, Jesus continues and heightens the Old Testament expectation of a new, unprecedented outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Specifically, he indicates that this event will take place “not many days from now.” The day of Pentecost inaugurates the fulfillment of Jesus’ words; the disciples “were all filled with the Holy Spirit” (2:4). Moreover, Pentecost marks the fulfillment of Joel’s words, as Peter explains to the crowds of people who are puzzled by the miraculous, tangible signs that accompany the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (2:14–21; the quotation in vv. 17–21 is from Joel 2:28–31). Accordingly, the day of Pentecost is one of the most significant events in the history of the world. It marks the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the launching of his new, unprecedented ministry, the fulfillment of prophetic anticipation (specifically, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Joel) as well as the expectation of John the Baptist and Jesus. The Holy Spirit is characteristic of the new covenant, as foretold by the Old Testament and emphasized by John and Jesus.

The preceding presentation has underscored three themes that are developed progressively in the Old Testament and elaborated by the New Testament: first, the Mosaic covenant is a failure (because of the people of Israel’s sin) and will one day become obsolete. Second, the old covenant will be replaced by a new covenant. Third, this new covenant will be associated with a fresh, new, unprecedented outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The conclusion that I draw from these themes is that the old covenant, as a covenant that God established with the people of Israel, failed because of their tragic failure to keep it; thus, it has been replaced by the new covenant, with a particular emphasis on the Holy Spirit, as the covenant that God establishes with the church. The contrast between the old and new covenants, specifically with respect to the work of the Holy Spirit and the obsolescence of the former and preeminence of the latter for the church, is the discussion to which I now turn.

From a New Testament perspective, a strong contrast exists between the old covenant work of the Holy Spirit and his new covenant ministry. Paul underscores this sharp discontinuity in 2 Corinthians 3.[17] Important for our purposes is the following: using the language of Ezekiel 36:26, Paul describes his Corinthian disciples as “a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts” (2 Cor. 3:3). The Corinthians are arguably a fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophetic anticipation.[18] Furthermore, Paul and those ministering with him are self-consciously “ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (v. 6). That is, Paul and his associates have explicitly broken with the old covenant and are engaged in new covenant ministry.[19] He then launches into a comparison of the two: the old covenant ministry was “the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone” (v. 7), “the ministry of condemnation” (v. 9), and the ministry of “glory . . . being brought to an end (v. 7).” By contrast, the new covenant ministry is “the ministry of the Spirit” (v. 8), “the ministry of reconciliation” (v. 9), and the ministry of exceeding glory (v. 9). This exalted language can only mean that, by comparison, the old covenant ministry has relatively “no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it” (v. 10). Thus, the old covenant “was being brought to an end” (v. 11), giving way to the “permanent” ministry of the new covenant that replaces it (v. 11).

Of course, the old covenant does not disappear but continues its failure as before, as Paul illustrates with reference to the unbelieving Jews of his time: “For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed” (2 Cor. 3:14–16). Hope for the Jewish people depends on their embracing “the Lord” who, as Paul continues, “is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit” (vv. 17–18). The Holy Spirit in the new covenant is none other than the Lord (Yahweh, Jehovah) of the old covenant. Moreover, this Holy Spirit is characteristic of the new covenant, and he is so in a manner never true of the old covenant.

The writer to the Hebrews similarly addresses the obsolescence of the old covenant and the establishment of the new covenant in its place. Introducing Jeremiah’s prophecy of the new covenant, the author explains, “But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second” (Heb. 8:6–7). He then quotes Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jer. 31:31–34) as evidence of the faultiness of the people of Israel (Heb. 8:8); they are the reason the old covenant is faulty and in need of replacement. Of course, Jeremiah explicitly names the new covenant as God’s plan for the future of his people (Heb. 8:8–12). The writer to the Hebrews concludes, “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (v. 13). The old covenant, not because of any fault of its own, but because of the sinfulness of the covenant people, has been rendered obsolete and is replaced by the new covenant. Such sinfulness is ultimately dealt with by the new covenant;[20] indeed, “there is no longer any offering for sin” as prescribed by the Mosaic Law, because “there is forgiveness of these [sins and lawless deeds]” (10:16–18). This reality is because of and through Jesus Christ, who “is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant” (9:15). Gone is the old covenant, and in its place is the new covenant.

This change of covenants is powerfully underscored in the differences in the signs associated with the old and new covenants. Circumcision belonged to the former covenant; baptism and the Lord’s Supper pertain to the present covenant. As we will see in the chapter on baptism, the first Christians were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ upon hearing the gospel, repenting of their sins, and believing in Christ for salvation (e.g., Acts 2:37–41). For the most part, they were Jews who had been circumcised, and thus the issue of the relationship between circumcision and the church remained latent at this point. When the first Gentiles embraced salvation in Christ, some of those early Jewish Christians insisted that these Gentile converts be circumcised in order to be saved actually (Acts 15:1, 5). In no uncertain terms, the council meeting at Jerusalem condemned this additional requirement: salvation had come graciously to the Gentiles by hearing the gospel and believing by faith (vv. 7, 9). Circumcision was the sign of the old covenant, but it does not pertain to new covenant Christ-followers. Furthermore, as we will see in the chapter on the Lord’s Supper, in the midst of his final Passover feast with his disciples, after taking the cup and blessing it—part of the Passover celebration—Jesus made a startling statement: “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:27–28).[21] The change Jesus introduced to the Passover celebration must be considered a “‘negative sign’ of discontinuity,” signaling the obsolescence of the former covenant between God and his people.[22] That old covenant had been ratified by blood (Ex. 24:6–8). The new covenant would be ratified, not with the blood of bulls, sheep, and goats, but with Jesus’ own blood. And a sign of this new covenant would be the Lord’s Supper, as established by Jesus himself. Thus, two new rites signal the change from the obsolescent old covenant with its circumcision to the Jesus-instituted new covenant with its baptism and Lord’s Supper.

So as to avoid misunderstanding, a comment needs to be interjected at this point. The New Testament writers, when commenting on the obsolescence of the old covenant, are not relegating the Old Testament to irrelevancy. This could not be the case, as Jesus himself explains: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (Matt. 5:17–18). Jesus’ expression “the Law and the Prophets” was a common way of referring to the Jewish Scriptures, or what we Christians call the Old Testament. He did not come to abolish this part of the Word of God. Indeed, he commends all who observe and teach “the least of these commandments” (v. 19). Accordingly, Jesus does not put an end to the Old Testament, but in coming to inaugurate the new covenant and to pour out the Holy Spirit in a fresh, unprecedented way, Jesus did render obsolete the old covenant.

Specifically, this means that there has been a change in the national character of the people of God. If in the old covenant the primary beneficiaries of that relationship with God were the people of Israel (with the inclusion of some Gentiles in the covenant community; e.g., Ex. 12:38, 48–49; Josh. 8:35), in the new covenant the partners are both Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2:11–22). From pre-cross times, this development was not disclosed: the Jews were the covenant people of God, and the Gentiles “were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (v. 12). But what was hidden before the coming of Christ has now been disclosed, as Paul notes when he explains “the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (Eph. 3:4–6).[23] Indeed, Jesus underscores this Gentile aspect. In speaking to the Jewish leaders, he warns about the dire consequences of their rejection of him as Messiah, the chief cornerstone of God’s new work in their midst: “Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people [ἔθνος (ethnos), or the Gentiles] producing its fruits. And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him” (Matt. 21:43–44). Whereas the old covenant people of God were mostly Jews, the new covenant people would feature Jews and (mostly) Gentiles in the church.

In conclusion, then, the church is the church of the new covenant. Like the other covenants found in Scripture, the new covenant (1) is unilateral, established by God and God only. Indeed, the provision for this covenant—the death of Jesus as the unblemished, spotless Lamb of God—“was foreknown before the foundation of the world” (1 Pet. 1:20), and thus was part of the eternal divine plan. Furthermore, it (2) creates a structured relationship between God and his covenant partners, who consist of people “from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9). These are Christ-followers who heard the gospel of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, repented of their sins, embraced Jesus Christ by faith, were baptized in the name of the triune God, received forgiveness for their sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit, and were incorporated into the church of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:22–47). Moreover, the new covenant (3) features binding obligations, which some have summarized as “the Great Commandment” (Matt. 22:37–40) and “the Great Commission” (Matt. 28:19–20); Paul’s expression for the sum of these covenantal obligations is “the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2). Moreover, God binds himself to his new covenant partners, offering his ongoing presence (especially through the Holy Spirit; John 14:16), his preserving power (1 Pet. 1:5), the intercession of his Son (Heb. 7:25) and the Spirit (Rom. 8:9), the distribution of spiritual gifts for the maturation of his covenant people (Eph. 4:7–8; 1 Corinthians 12–14), incorporation into the body of Christ so as to unify his covenant people (1 Cor. 12:13), and the like. Finally, the new covenant (4) involves two covenantal signs: baptism, the sign of entrance into new covenant relationship with God and into the covenant community, the church; and the Lord’s Supper, the sign of ongoing new covenant relationship with God and the covenant community, the church.

THE INCEPTION OF THE CHURCH

Because of the identity of the new covenant partners—God and Christ-followers—I draw the conclusion that the church began at Pentecost and did not exist prior to that monumental event. With the above discussion on the new covenant as background, I will now give further evidence for this conclusion.

Before engaging in this discussion, however, I want to clarify something so as not to be misunderstood. By affirming that the church did not begin until Pentecost, I am not implying that the people of God did not exist prior to that time. The Old Testament centers on God’s election and establishment of his people, the nation of Israel, from among all the nations of the world. This election was not based on the size or significance of the Jewish people, but it was a gracious choice that resulted in Jehovah’s powerful salvific work liberating them from slavery in Egypt and his mighty acts to defeat the Canaanites and establish his people in the Promised Land of Israel. Even when the northern kingdom committed unpardonable treason and was destroyed by the Assyrians, and even though Judah and Benjamin rebelled and were carried off into Babylonian captivity, God acted with mercy in the midst of his severe judgment and brought back a remnant from exile to the land of Israel. The names most associated with the birth and growth of the people of Israel—the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the great leaders Moses, Aaron, and Joshua; the judges Deborah, Gideon, and Samson; the Gentiles Ruth, Naomi, and Rahab who associated themselves with the Israelites; the kings Saul, David, and Solomon; the reformers Asa, Jehoash, Amaziah, Hezekiah, and Josiah; the prophets Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; the exilic and postexilic heroes Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther—not to mention the innumerable unnamed followers of Jehovah, are stellar proof that prior to Pentecost God saved and established his people even when they were only a small remnant. And through these people and many others, God was preparing a prophetic history and royal lineage for his Suffering Servant and King, the Messiah.[24]

As the apostle Paul, from a new covenant perspective, rightly notes about his own people, “They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenant, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen” (Rom. 9:4–5). Many, then, were the advantages of being Jewish (Rom. 3:1–2). In the opposite quadrant, the pagan Gentiles were “at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12). Strikingly but not unsurprisingly, then, the Messiah came to save his own people, the Jews (John 1:11), for salvation was from them (John 4:22; cf. Matt. 2:4–6) and first and foremost extended to them and not to the Gentiles (Matt. 10:5–7). Even the new covenant church imitated its Lord by going initially and exclusively to the Jewish people (Acts 1:1–11:18).[25] Thus, the people of Israel formed the old covenant people of God and were the recipients of his salvation, guidance, protection, sanctification, forgiveness, mercy, grace, and love.

But these faithful and obedient followers of Jehovah, these people of God, did not constitute the church. Yes, God’s work of redemption began with Adam. Yes, God’s promise to bless all human beings through a particular nation was made to Abraham. Yes, God’s covenant with the particular people of Israel was given specific expression on Mount Sinai with Moses. But the people of God post–Adamic covenant, post–Abrahamic covenant,[26] and post–old/Mosaic covenant—up to the new covenant—did not constitute the church.

In addition to the discussion above on the change from the old covenant to the new covenant, I offer the following arguments for locating the inception of the church at Pentecost.

From the perspective of Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry, the church was a future reality. Specifically, with reference to Peter’s confession of Christ’s identity, Jesus explained that “on this rock I will build [οἰκοδομήσω (oikodomēsō), future tense] my church” (Matt. 16:18).[27] This future point was not specified, but other New Testament affirmations demarcate it as subsequent to Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension (e.g., Matt. 16:21). Only after these events would the Father exalt the Son; only as the crucified, resurrected, and ascended Lord over all would Jesus become the head of the church, which is his body (Eph. 1:19–23). Thus, the church would come into existence only after these events and so would be constituted the body of Christ.

Incorporation into this body takes place when Christ baptizes his followers with the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13; John 1:33), but this baptism with the Spirit as part of his outpouring was (as we have seen) future with reference to Christ’s earthly ministry (Matt. 3:11; John 7:37–39) and post-resurrection appearances (Acts 1:4–5), being inaugurated on Pentecost (2:1–4).[28] Not only is the gift of the Holy Spirit given to Christ-followers; his gifts (plural) are given as well. But the distribution of spiritual gifts did not occur until after Jesus’ ascension (Eph. 4:7–11). Clearly, this endowment was not part of the experience of the old covenant people of God, but awaited the ascension of Christ. Thus, because both baptism with the Holy Spirit and the distribution of spiritual gifts, constitutive elements of the church, were inaugurated after Christ’s ascension by the outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost, the church did not come into existence until that event.

This view raises the question of the relationship to the church of those who were Jesus’ disciples during his earthly ministry. Some people locate the beginning of the church with Jesus’ calling of his first disciples, Peter, Andrew, James, and John (Matt. 4:18–22).[29] Others situate its beginning at the institution of the Lord’s Supper during Jesus’ Last Supper with his disciples (Matt. 26:26–29). Still others contend that the church was initiated after Jesus’ resurrection with his appearances to the disciples.[30] My own view is that the disciples did not constitute the church but were in the process of being prepared by Jesus to be the foundation and first leaders of the church, which was inaugurated on Pentecost. As Twelftree notes, through his description of the 120 disciples at the beginning of Acts (chapter 1), “Luke probably intends his readers to understand that the community of followers of Jesus that existed in the period between Easter and Pentecost was one that had already been formed, even though it had not received the resources for mission. Moreover, the readers probably could not avoid concluding that this community had not been formed recently but had its roots firmly established in the ministry of Jesus.”[31] While they were with him, the disciples did grasp some essential matters regarding Jesus and his mission (e.g., Peter’s confession; Matt. 16:13–20), but more often than not they misunderstood him, even to the extent of becoming an obstacle to his divinely given purpose (e.g., the rebuke of Peter following Jesus’ announcement of his upcoming death; Matt. 16:21–23). Certainly, his disciples left everything, “believed” in Jesus, and followed him (John 6:66–69), but they were also chidingly characterized as “you of little faith” (Matt. 6:30; 8:26; 14:31; 16:8; 17:20). They were typified by self-interest (e.g., Matt. 17:4–5) and concern for status (e.g., Mark 9:33–34; 10:35–37). During Jesus’ passion, the disciples slept rather than prayed (Matt. 26:36–46), betrayed him to and in the midst of enemies (Judas, Matt. 26:47–50; Peter, Luke 22:54–62), and abandoned him at his crucifixion. The extreme contrast between the bumbling, self-centered, fearful followers before the crucifixion and resurrection and the perceptive, self-sacrificing, courageous missionaries after Pentecost must be attributed in part to the sending and outpouring of the Spirit in his new covenant ministry, and their baptism with the Spirit and reception of spiritual gifts. As these are distinctive marks of the church, I conclude that the disciples were prepared by Jesus for future leadership in his church, which came into existence at Pentecost. The nascent form was established during Jesus’ earthly ministry and awaited the Spirit’s vital breath to enliven and empower it, thereby constituting the church the living body of Christ.

In summary, the church began at Pentecost and did not exist prior to that event, though the people of God did exist and flourish, and the form of the church was set in place by Jesus during his three-year ministry. Because the church is the church of the new covenant, it awaited the passing of the old covenant and the institution of its replacement, and Jesus inaugurated this new covenant through his death and resurrection. Moreover, because certain constitutive elements of the church—baptism with the Holy Spirit for incorporation into the body of Christ, and the distribution of spiritual gifts—awaited the ascension of Jesus Christ and the subsequent outpouring of the Holy Spirit in his powerful new ministry on the day of Pentecost, the church did not exist until that day.

This perspective stands in contrast with the position that the church existed far before the day of Pentecost, as far back as Adam. That is, the church consists of all the redeemed, from the time of humanity’s fall into sin and rescue from it until Jesus Christ returns. Key elements in support of this view include a continuity approach to the relationship between the church and Israel, Paul’s reference to the church as “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16), common descriptors of Israel and the church, the common way of redemption by divine grace appropriated by faith, some continuity of experiences of the Holy Spirit, and the early church’s self-consciousness of being the new Israel. As this discussion overlaps significantly with the topic of the relationship between the church and Israel, I turn now to that issue (and will note its intersection with the position that the church began before Pentecost).

THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CHURCH AND ISRAEL

For most of the church’s history, the relationship between the church and Israel was regarded as one of continuity and substitution. In terms of continuity, the people of Israel under the old covenant and Christians of the new covenant are both part of the people of God, joined together under the one covenant of grace. According to this continuity position, “the term ‘the church’ is used to apply to all those whom Christ died to redeem, all those who are saved by the death of Christ. But that must include all true believers for all time, both believers in the New Testament age and believers in the Old Testament age as well.”[32] Specifically, Louis Berkhof identifies the church in the patriarchal period with “the pious households, where the fathers served as priests. . . . At the time of the flood the Church was saved in the family of Noah, and continued particularly in the line of Shem.” Next, “the families of the patriarchs were the real repositories of the true faith,” constituting the church. “After the exodus,” Berkhof maintains, “the people of Israel were not only organized into a nation, but were also constituted the Church of God. They were enriched with institutions in which not only family devotion or tribal faith but the religion of the nation could find expression. The Church did not yet obtain an independent organization, but had its institutional existence in the national life of Israel.” In brief, the existence of the church extends all the way back to patriarchal times. As for what the New Testament brings, Berkhof offers, “The New Testament Church is essentially one with the Church of the old dispensation. As far as their essential nature is concerned, they both consist of true believers, and of true believers only. And in their external organization both represent a mixture of good and evil.”[33]

In terms of substitution, the continuity position holds that the church has replaced Israel—or it fulfills the promises made to Israel[34]—such that the Jews as a national people hold no special place in the salvific work of God now or in the future. Because of their rejection of Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah, the Jews have forfeited the promises of blessing that are replete throughout the Old Testament. Other proponents of the continuity view insist that those promises are now being fulfilled in the church. In either case, there is no residual hope for a fresh outpouring of salvation upon the people of Israel in the future.[35]

A key passage in support of the continuity view is Galatians 6:16: “And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.” The rule to which Paul refers is that articulated in the preceding verse: the key is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, but “a new creation” (v. 15) through the cross of Jesus Christ. For all who keep in step with this rule, the apostle prays divine peace and mercy.

For our discussion, the important question focuses on the referent of the expression “the Israel of God.” Scholars are divided on the answer. Some consider the referent to be Jewish believers in Jesus the Messiah; accordingly, Paul prays a special blessing on this particular Jewish-Christian part of the church. This interpretation is highly unlikely, however, for several reasons. The idea would cut across the grain of the entire letter and its theme of Jews and Gentiles together in Christ (e.g., Gal. 3:26–29). Moreover, it would contradict Paul’s belittling of the distinction between circumcision and uncircumcision (e.g., 5:6), the very point that has led him to frame the rule of Galatians 6:15. “Having just made an all-inclusive statement in verse 15, is it not inconceivable that Paul suddenly would distinguish between two kinds of Christians, one Gentile, the other Jewish?”[36] This interpretation, then, is not very plausible.

Other scholars understand the referent to be the church—mostly Gentiles, with a remnant of Jews—that now constitutes “the new people of God—the new and true Israel.”[37] They hold the referent of the expression “all who walk by this rule” and the referent of the expression “the Israel of God” to be equivalent. Furthermore, these interpreters point to Paul’s description of all Christ-followers—including those from a Gentile background—as “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:29; cf. 3:9, 14). Thus, they contend that the apostle prays for peace and mercy to be upon the church, which is the “Israel of God”:

Such an interpretation fits with the whole of the letter, for believers in Christ are true sons of Abraham. But if they are Abraham’s children and belong to his family, then they belong to the Israel of God. It would be highly confusing to the Galatians, after arguing for the equality of Jew and Gentile in Christ (3:28) and after emphasizing that believers are Abraham’s children, for Paul to argue in the conclusion that only Jews who believe in Jesus belong to the Israel of God. By doing so a wedge would be introduced between Jews and Gentiles at the end of the letter, suggesting that they are not part of the true Israel. Such a wedge would play into the hands of the opponents, who would argue that to be part of the true Israel one must be circumcised. Instead, Paul confirms one of the major themes of the letter. All believers in Christ are part of the true Israel, part of God’s Israel.[38]

This interpretation, which is a plausible understanding, equates the church with the new Israel. If this identification is true, it is the most direct affirmation of the continuity between the church and Israel.

A third interpretation, which disagrees with the first two understandings, takes the referent to be ethnic Israel.[39] In this case, as he nears the end of his letter to the Galatians, Paul is aware that he has been highly critical of his own people the Jews—“the Israel of God.” He has magnified his ministry to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:7–9), recounted his rebuke of Peter and other Jewish believers for their hypocrisy (1:13–16; 2:11–14), clarified the role of the Mosaic law (3:15–25), underscored the barrenness of the Jews according to the flesh (4:21–31), noted Jewish persecution of the church (4:29), and exposed the unimportance of circumcision (5:2–12; 6:11–15). Such strong criticism, he fears, could be misunderstood to be a scathing indictment of the Jewish people—not what Paul intends to communicate. Appropriately, he prays for divine blessing both for the church—“all who walk by this rule”—as well as for “the Israel of God.” This plausible interpretation supports the discontinuity position, emphasizing the distinction between the church and Israel.[40]

Support for this interpretation includes New Testament and Pauline usage of the term “Israel.” In almost all cases, it refers to ethnic Israel; indeed, if it were the case that “the Israel of God” refers to the church, it would be the only instance of this in all of Scripture.[41] Also, as highly unlikely as it is that Paul would single out Jewish believers in the church for special blessing (an objection to the first interpretation), it is equally unlikely that he would call the church with its large Gentile majority “the Israel of God.” His point has been to deflate the importance of Jewish identity, so why would he suddenly refer to the church with an expression with such little weight? Other supporters of this interpretation focus on the unusual word order—“peace and mercy”—in Paul’s invocation of blessing,[42] and champion the common connotation of the word translated “and” (“peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God”) as indicating a different group from the one just mentioned.[43]

If this interpretation is correct, then Galatians 6:16 is not a passage in support of the identity between the church and Israel. The case for continuity between the church and Israel in the people of God and the replacement of the latter by the former (or the fulfillment of the promises to Israel in the church), though the traditional perspective of the church, may not rely on this verse without challenge. Rather, Paul prays God’s blessing for the church—“all who walk by this rule”—as well as for “the Israel of God”; that is, the church and Israel are distinct entities.[44]

Of course, evidence for the continuity position does not hinge on this passage alone.[45] Further support includes: (1) certain descriptors that apply to both Israel and the church, such as the “offspring” or “sons” of Abraham (Rom. 4:16; Gal. 3:7, 29) and “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession” (1 Pet. 2:9, with echoes of Ex. 19:6); (2) the common way of salvation by God’s grace through faith for both Israel and the church (e.g., Rom. 4:22–25); (3) the continuity of experiences with the Holy Spirit (e.g., John 14:16); and (4) the controversy over circumcision as demonstrating that the early church considered itself to be the new Israel, as explained by Edmund Clowney:

In the apostolic church, the controversy over circumcision took place only because both sides thought of the church as the true Israel. Those who required Gentile Christians to be circumcised obviously thought that those converts were being added to God’s people. Paul never challenged this. He never explained that Christians were joining a new entity, the church, and not Israel, and that circumcision was therefore inappropriate. On the contrary, he claimed for the church the true spiritual circumcision of Christ, gained by union with him.[46]

This continuity position with regard to the relationship between Israel and the church has a rich history and able proponents.

Beginning in the nineteenth century, the historic continuity view was challenged by the doctrine of the church articulated by (classical) dispensational theology.[47] Two contributors to this development were J. N. Darby and Lewis Sperry Chafer. Darby insisted on a complete discontinuity between the remnant of the Jewish people and the church—each has its own history, destiny, and hope. Concerning the church, Darby believed that it was a mystery that was not revealed until the apostle Paul wrote his letters[48] and concluded that the doctrine of the church “was thus wholly unknown to the saints of the Old Testament.”[49] More specifically, the entire doctrine of the church was communicated by the apostle Paul—it is found nowhere else, even in the New Testament.[50]

According to Lewis Sperry Chafer, some of the key differences between the Jewish people and the church include the permanent indwelling of Christians by the Holy Spirit, the baptism of the Holy Spirit for Christians, earthly promises to Israel versus heavenly promises to the church, law as the rule of life for the Jews versus grace for Christians, and incorporation into the body of Christ for Christians.[51] Furthermore, Chafer argued that the church began at Pentecost and did not exist for the old covenant people of God because its existence was dependent on the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, as well as the descent of the Holy Spirit to regenerate, baptize, and seal people as part of the church.[52] This church, being dominated by grace and having no connection whatsoever to law, finds its instructions for doctrine, worship, ministry, ordinances, and government solely in (parts of) the New Testament, not at all in the Old Testament.[53] Indeed, for Chafer, the church is an “intercalation” or parenthesis interjected into the plan of God for his people, the Jews.[54] Once this interruption in the divine plan comes to completion—at the rapture of the church just prior to the seven years of the great tribulation leading up to the second coming of Christ—God will once again turn to his people the Jews and renew his saving work toward them.

Since the formulation of this classical dispensational ecclesiology, new expressions of this theology have challenged some of its key tenets while still presenting a (moderate) discontinuity view.[55] These permutations of dispensationalism contend that the church is not a parenthesis in the divine program but has always been an essential feature of God’s plan to extend his salvation to all people, both Jews and Gentiles. Moreover, they do not distinguish between the church and Israel in terms of spiritual and heavenly blessings for the former and physical and earthly blessings for the latter. Rather, both in their own ways participate in the kingdom of God and its multifold blessings. Furthermore, the strict dichotomy between the law for Israel and grace for the church is rejected as utterly untenable.

Still, for these types of dispensationalism, discontinuity between the church and Israel can be clearly seen in certain experiences of salvation—the baptism of the Holy Spirit who permanently indwells Christians and endows them with spiritual gifts, for example. At the same time, this discontinuity is not absolute, as seen in the following: the church is the beneficiary of both the new covenant, which was prophesied for Israel and Judah (Jer. 31:31–34; cited in Heb. 8:6–13), and the promise of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit for Judah (Joel 2:28–29; cited in Acts 2:17–21). In addition, certain terms used for the Jewish people—e.g., the “offspring” or “sons” of Abraham (Rom. 4:16; Gal. 3:7, 29); “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession” (1 Pet. 2:9, with echoes of Ex. 19:6)—are applied to the church as well. And ultimately, the church and Israel are part of the one people of God, as vividly portrayed by Paul’s metaphor of the olive tree (Rom. 11:13–24).[56] But the dissimilarities are significant enough so as to maintain the distinction between the church and Israel. These recent varieties of dispensationalism also hold to a future fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies directed at national Israel, including the salvation of many Jewish people and restoration to the land of Israel.[57] It is this moderate discontinuity position that I hold.

In summary, the relationship between the church and Israel is viewed differently by two opposing perspectives. Broadly speaking, from a continuity position, the people of Israel under the old covenant and Christians of the new covenant are both part of the people of God, joined together under the one covenant of grace. Furthermore, the church has replaced Israel—or it fulfills the promises made to Israel—such that the Jews as a national people hold no special place in the salvific work of God either now or in the future (again, some proponents of continuity nuance this last aspect, maintaining a future large-scale conversion of the Jews). Broadly speaking, from a discontinuity position, while the people of Israel and the church of the new covenant are both part of the people of God, significant disparate elements—e.g., differences in the old covenant for the people of Israel and the new covenant for the church, the diversity of experience of the Holy Spirit, incorporation of Christians into the body of Christ, the character of the old covenant people (mostly Jews, with a smattering of Gentiles attached to Israel) in contrast with the new covenant people (Jews and Gentiles as one new entity, with a majority of the latter)—underscore the distinctions between the two. Furthermore, the church has not replaced Israel nor fulfilled all of the promises made to Israel, and given the Old Testament promises (affirmed in Romans 11) of a bright future for the Jews, a significant divine work awaits them, including their large-scale conversion and national restoration.

THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CHURCH AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD[58]

The kingdom of God is a predominant theme of Scripture,[59] and for this reason alone its relationship to the church is important and must be addressed. Add to this the fact that, throughout its history, the church has entertained vastly different notions of its relationship to the kingdom of God, with the result that different ecclesiologies have arisen.[60] At the same time, no monolithic notion of the kingdom of God has existed or exists, further complicating the issue. Indeed, at least five elements coalesce together in describing the relationship between the church and the kingdom of God. Accordingly, after presenting my understanding of the kingdom, I will explain the complex relationship between the church and the kingdom according to these five themes: specifically, the church and the kingdom as God’s universal rule and eternal dominion; the church and the kingdom as Israel; the church and the kingdom as belonging to the Son of Man/Davidic King; the church and the kingdom as an inaugurated reality; and the church and the kingdom as an eschatological reality.

The Identity of the Kingdom of God

As any kingdom is ruled by a king, in the matter before us, “God is the King of all the earth” (Ps. 47:7), the “Most High” who “rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will” (Dan. 4:25; cf. Ps. 22:28). His sovereignty is such that “the king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will” (Prov. 21:1) so that it may be said that “he removes kings and sets up kings” (Dan. 2:21). This divine reign is not confined to earth and its citizens; God is also ruler of the angelic domain (Dan. 4:35; cf. Ps. 135:6). As such, universality and eternity apply to God’s sovereign rulership (Ps. 103:19; 145:13). This aspect of the kingdom focuses on God’s reign or rule over all the created order—he is the King who exercises absolute sovereignty over his kingdom, which consists of everything he has brought into and keeps in existence.

Of particular interest to us is the kingdom of humanity created and ruled over by him. In one sense, God is the sovereign Lord of all the peoples of the world (Acts 17:25–26). Indeed, he has created all human beings in his image and has given them the responsibility for and the ability to carry out the “cultural mandate” (Gen. 1:28). Consequently, all people exist as vice-regents of and under the sovereign King.[61]

At the same time, out of all the nations of the world, this sovereign King chose Israel to be the kingdom of his covenant people; thus, it was said of the Israelites, “The LORD their God is with them, and the shout of a king is among them” (Num. 23:21). This kingdom of Israel was first a theocracy ruled by God himself, then later was led by human kings, first as a united kingdom (under Saul, David, and Solomon) and then as the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah.[62] Why were these people recipients of God’s particular attention? The reason certainly did not lie with the natural greatness of these—rather than of other—people (Deut. 7:7). Rather, divine election was the reason—the sovereign Lord chose Israel to be his particular people as an expression of his unconditional grace and kindness. As a result, God spoke of the people of Israel as “my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine, and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex. 19:5–6). Ultimately, the sovereign plan was that the election of Israel would not only bring salvation to this people but would eventually result in the blessing of the entire world (Gen. 12:1–3; Isa. 45:21–22).

While this theocratic/monarchical kingdom experienced its many ebbs and flows, the Old Testament prophets wrote about the anticipation of a glorious future. In part, this hope had specific reference to Israel, in terms of a restoration of its people to the land of promise and abundant blessing (e.g., Ezekiel 36–37). Still, this future, glorious kingdom of God was associated with a coming Davidic king (2 Samuel 7; Ps. 89:27; Mark 11:10) and “one like a son of man” who would have a worldwide impact: “And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed” (Dan. 7:14). Indeed, this Son of Man/Davidic King would have the responsibility of bringing light to “the people who walked in darkness” (Isa. 9:2–7); he himself would be “a light for the nations” (Isa. 42:6). By means of this coming King, the kingdom of God would be extended to all the peoples of the world, in fulfillment of the original vision. Ultimately, however, all the kingdoms of this world would be destroyed (Dan. 7:27). The Old Testament prophetic hope included a particular emphasis on the people of Israel yet extended beyond to encompass a vision for an eternal kingdom to be established for the King and all of his subjects.

Jesus of Nazareth inaugurated the fulfillment of this Old Testament vision, being identified as both the son/descendant of David (Matt. 1:1; Luke 1:32; Rom. 1:3–4) and the Son of Man (Luke 19:10; Matt. 26:64). In particular, “the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45), a statement of Jesus’ own self-identification with the Son of Man figure of the Old Testament and his advancement of that image to include the accomplishment of salvation. Indeed, a conjunction between the gospel and the kingdom was central to the mission of Jesus who, at the outset of his ministry, “came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel’” (Mark 1:14–15). This ministry of proclaiming “the gospel of the kingdom” was accompanied by Jesus’ “healing every disease and every affliction among the people” (Matt. 4:23; 9:35). Because at least some of these physical ailments were the result of demonic activity, Jesus also engaged in exorcisms, drawing attention to the power of the Holy Spirit at work through him: “But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matt. 12:22, 28). Thus, the miraculous signs and Spirit-empowered exorcisms underscored Jesus’ inauguration of the kingdom of God. And the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom of God was at the core of this mission.

Thus far, the discussion has focused on the present reality of the kingdom in the ministry of Jesus. But there was another side of this kingdom reality. An eschatological aspect balances this realized aspect of the kingdom, making the kingdom inaugurated but incomplete, here but not here, “already” but “not yet.” Indeed, according to Jesus, the kingdom he ushers in begins small, “like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches” (Matt. 13:31–32; cf. 33–34).[63] As it expands, however, the kingdom is countered by another domain (13:1–9, 18–23, 24–30, 36–43). As for the kingdom, parabolically the sower sows good seed on good soil that sprouts and produces good grain. In other words, the “children of the kingdom” hear the word of the kingdom, understand it, and bear fruit; they are the result of Jesus’ work in the world. As for the counter domain, parabolically, the sower sows good seed on bad soil that fails to develop fully. Alternatively, an enemy sows weeds among the wheat such that, in the midst of the good grain, weeds appear also. In other words, the “sons of the evil one” hear the word of the kingdom but either fail to understand it or, though understanding it, do not persist so as to bear fruit. They are the weeds among the wheat; they are the result of Satan’s work in the world.

Accordingly, the world, which is ultimately God’s kingdom, is populated by two diverse groups of citizens, two opposing domains: the “children of the kingdom” and the “sons of the evil one.” This world/kingdom will encompass these two opposing citizenries until the end. At harvest time the reapers will first gather the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned, then they will gather the wheat into the sower’s barn. In other words, at the close of the age, Jesus “will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father” (Matt. 13:41–43). To them, Jesus the King will say, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (25:34). As history progresses, God’s kingdom-as-the-world moves patiently yet resolutely toward the actualization of this eschatological vision of the demise of all opposition and the exaltation of its rightful King and citizens.

In summary, the kingdom of God includes (1) the universal rule and complete reign of the sovereign King over everything he has created and sustains in existence; (2) the people of Israel, graciously chosen from among all the peoples of the world to be God’s covenant kingdom people; (3) an anticipated future vision associated with a Davidic King and the Son of Man; (4) an inaugurated reality, fulfilled “already” in Jesus Christ who preached the gospel of the kingdom of God, which message gives rise to and results in children of the kingdom and citizens of opposition; and (5) a hope for the “not yet” aspects of the kingdom reality in Jesus, to be completed soon. Accordingly, the church relates to the kingdom of God according to these five themes, all of which will be explored in the following discussion.

The Church and the Kingdom as God’s Universal Rule and Eternal Dominion

In one sense, the church owes its existence to the kingdom, intended as God’s universal rule and eternal dominion: the sovereign king, reigning over everything, purposed, brought forth, and established the church as part of his reign. The church, then, is one reality that exists and develops under the exhaustive sovereignty of God over all things: it takes its place with the angelic hosts, the subkingdoms appointed by God (Rom. 13:1–7), all humanity, and the entirety of the created order as constitutive elements of the kingdom rule of God. George Eldon Ladd explains this reality of the church as the community of the kingdom of God:

The Kingdom is primarily the dynamic reign or kingly rule of God, and, derivatively, the sphere in which the rule is experienced. In biblical idiom, the Kingdom is not identified with its subjects. They are the people of God’s rule who enter it, live under it, and are governed by it. The church is the community of the Kingdom but never the Kingdom itself. Jesus’ disciples belong to the Kingdom as the Kingdom belongs to them; but they are not the Kingdom. The Kingdom is the rule of God; the church is a society of men.[64]

Without equating or fusing the two realities, we may affirm that the church is the community of citizens of the kingdom of God.[65]

This identity is most thoroughly affirmed by Jesus in what certainly is the locus classicus in historical and contemporary discussions of the church: Matthew 16:16–19. In speaking with his disciples, Jesus indicates that he is about to establish a new entity, different from, yet with some similarities to, the qahal featured in Israel in earlier days.[66] Jesus will institute a new assembly of his people gathered under him—“my church,” he calls it—involving the Twelve and built on Peter and his authoritative word—the confession of faith in the identity of Jesus of Nazareth.[67] In another sense, then, the church is the instrument through which entrance into the kingdom is granted, as the church has been entrusted with and employs “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (16:19). These keys have to do with the gospel and people’s response to it: those who repent of sin and embrace Jesus Christ by faith are “loosed” from their sin, death and condemnation, domination by the world, and enslavement to the evil one. In contrast, those who refuse to heed the good news are “bound” in that persistent hellish nightmare. Accordingly, those who have been loosed from sin are incorporated into the church as citizens of the kingdom of God. “The implication is inescapable that, in the establishment of the church, there was to be a manifestation of the kingdom or rule of God.”[68] Though the King and his reign/subjects will be fiercely challenged—by the kingdom-opposing world, Satan, and the sons of the evil one (Matt. 12:22–37; 13:3–7, 18–22)—all such attempts to depose Christ and destroy his church will ultimately fail; “the gates of hell” or death will not prevail against the church. Though indestructible, the church as the display of the kingdom progresses through trial and temptation, suffering and persecution, as it is built by Christ himself.

For such a task of exercising the keys of the kingdom and offering entrance into the kingdom of God, Jesus himself prepared his disciples. Such activity was inaugurated while Jesus was still with them: “And he called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal” (Luke 9:1–2). After Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, the apostles were empowered and emboldened to continue this proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom. They were joined by others: Philip “preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:12), resulting in the conversion of a large number of Samaritans. A late addition to the apostolic group—the apostle Paul—engaged in several missionary journeys, bringing the good news to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews. Appropriately, Luke “closes” his book of Acts with Paul “proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance” (Acts 28:3–31; cf. 14:21–23; 19:8; 20:25).

This preaching of the gospel of the kingdom demands a response, and this response takes place through a combination of divine and human actions. On the one hand, the regenerative action of the Holy Spirit (John 3:5) is completely the work of God apart from any human cooperation. As the Holy Spirit brings about the new birth, regenerated people become citizens of the kingdom of God. On the other hand, Jesus called people to repentance and faith (Mark 1:15), warning that “whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it” (Luke 18:17). Indeed, acquisition of the kingdom, which “is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up,” demands that “he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field” (Matt. 13:44; cf. 45–46). Through both divine and human actions, the kingdom of God opens for sinful human beings to enter.

In summary, the church, which owes its existence to the kingdom of God, is also the key instrument in announcing the gospel, and through its communication of the gospel, new citizens enter into the kingdom of God. Thus, the church, as the community of the kingdom, provides entrance into the kingdom through its untiring preaching of the gospel, and its newly born citizens live as kingdom people under the universal rule and eternal dominion of the king.

The Church and the Kingdom as Israel

As seen above, a second important theme of the kingdom in Scripture is the Jewish people, or the nation of Israel, as the kingdom of God. This emphasis raises the question of the relationship between the church and Israel. Because I have already treated this topic, it will not be repeated here.

The Church and the Kingdom as Belonging to the Son of Man/Davidic King

A third major theme, noteworthy especially among Old Testament prophets, was an anticipation of a future, glorious kingdom of God belonging to a coming Son of Man/Davidic King. The Jewish rejection of Jesus as the fulfillment of the prophetic hope for Israel resulted in the initial fulfillment of that prophetic hope being expanded to include salvation reaching to the ends of the earth as the Son of Man/Davidic King would be “a light for the nations” (Isa. 42:6). Specifically, at the Jerusalem council, convened to investigate an unendorsed Judaizers’ claim that Gentiles embracing Jesus must also be “circumcised according to the custom of Moses” and “keep the law of Moses” in order to be saved (Acts 15:1, 5), James explains that the nascent movement of Gentiles turning to Jesus and entering the church is the beginning of fulfillment of Amos’s prophetic vision (Acts 15:16–17; citing Amos 9:11, 12).[69] Thus, the early church associated the inclusion of the Gentiles in the divine plan of redemption through the church with a restored house of David.

Similarly, Paul notes “that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God’s truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs, and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy” (Rom. 15:8–9). After listing several Old Testament passages that confirm this divine intention to include the Gentiles in redemption (Rom. 15:9–11; citing 2 Sam. 22:50; Deut. 32:43; and Ps. 117:1), the apostle cites the prophet Isaiah: “the root of Jesse will come, even he who arises to rule the Gentiles; in him will the Gentiles hope” (Rom. 15:12; citing Isa. 11:10). Again, language about Davidic kingship—“the root of Jesse” (cf. “the stump of Jesse”; Isa. 11:1)—is related to the inclusion of the Gentiles in the divine plan of redemption through the church.[70]

Following the apostle Paul’s teaching, this increasingly Gentile church professed “Jesus is Lord” not only as recognition of the identity of their sovereign King, but as subversion of all other claimants to ultimate allegiance: the acknowledgment of King Jesus entailed the renunciation of all other so-called kings, whether earthly Caesars ruling from Rome, or rulers and authorities and powers and dominions threatening human beings from the heavenly places. Such subversion was demanded because through the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, God had “disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him” (Col. 2:15) and had established Jesus “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come” (Eph. 1:21). The Christological hymn in Paul’s letter to the Philippians pays tribute to the ultimate demise of all other kings, rulers, authorities, and powers—be they earthly or heavenly—as they acknowledge the true Lord: “Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:9–11).[71]

The Church and the Kingdom as an Inaugurated Realit

Accordingly, and as a fourth theme, the church relates to the kingdom of God as an inaugurated reality. As noted above, the church corresponds to one of the two citizenries that encompass God’s kingdom-as-the-world, the “children of the kingdom.” Specifically, the church lives this inaugurated reality by seeking to expand the kingdom through its missional efforts (more on the missionality of the church later in the book), by pressing on toward kingdom maturity, and by advancing the human, earthly dimensions of the kingdom.

The church lives this inaugurated reality by pressing on toward kingdom maturity. As it is characterized by certain qualities, the church works hard to develop them more fully, supplementing

faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (2 Pet. 1:5–8, 11)

At the same time, being in the world and thus in close quarters with “the sons of the evil one” who are enemies of Christ afflicting his followers, the church experiences suffering as it waits for the realization of the kingdom (2 Thess. 1:5). Indeed, the church acknowledges that, in reference to Christ, it “should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake” (Phil. 1:29). As Paul announced, “through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22). Accordingly, the church is in this world and for this world, but it also is not of this world, mirroring Jesus’ view of his kingdom (John 18:36). So the church as the community of the kingdom renounces the wisdom of the world (1 Cor. 1:18–2:5) and fleshly warfare (2 Cor. 10:1–6) while it trusts in the power of God and obeys his kingdom’s values.

Additionally, the church lives the reality of the inaugurated kingdom by seeking to advance that kingdom wherever the church’s members—the citizens of the kingdom—live, work, and play: in neighborhoods, workplaces, governmental agencies, financial establishments, sports programs, and other institutions and structures.[72] Specifically, the church takes seriously the “cultural mandate” (Gen. 1:28), or the commission enjoined upon all human beings to engage in civilization building as vice-regents of the King. Accordingly, the church prepares redeemed “civilian citizens” to participate well in human endeavors such as politics, business, the arts, medicine and health care, athletics, science and technology, farming, and economics.[73] More about this aspect will be presented when the ministries of the church are discussed.

The Church and the Kingdom as an Eschatological Reality

While the church participates in and relishes the inaugurated reality of the kingdom of God, it hopes for the “not yet” aspects of the kingdom—indeed, the consummation of the kingdom in its fullness—to transpire soon. It longs for the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise, uttered at his trial before the high priest: “But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matt. 26:64).[74] From a premillennial perspective, the triumphant return of the King either (1) will be preceded by the rapture of the church seven years in advance so as to provide escape from the divine wrath poured out on the earth during the great tribulation (dispensational premillennialism), or (2) will take place concurrently with the rapture of the church (historic premillennialism).[75] In either case, the second coming will feature “the Word of God”—also named “King of kings and Lord of lords”—slaying all the enemies aligned against him (Rev. 19:11–21) and the resurrection of believers (Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 15:42–49; Phil. 3:20–21).[76] The returning King and Lord will next establish his millennial kingdom on earth, during which the saints “will reign with him for a thousand years” (Rev. 20:1–6).[77] At the conclusion of the millennium, Satan and his minions will engage in one last desperate battle against the Lord but will ultimately be defeated (vv. 7–10). The great white throne judgment follows (vv. 11–15), in which King Jesus exercises the authority delegated to him by the Father to judge (John 5:22, 26–27; Acts 10:42; 17:30–31; 2 Tim. 4:1). “Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. . . . When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:24–28). This last reality is the new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21–22).

Accordingly, the church is not the ultimate reality in the redemptive plan of God, but as it lives the inaugurated reality of the kingdom of God, it fixes its hope on the eschatological kingdom to come.

To summarize, a complex relationship exists between the church and the kingdom according to five themes. First, the church relates to the kingdom as God’s universal rule and eternal dominion such that, in one sense, the church owes its existence to the kingdom and, in another sense, the church is the instrument through which entrance into the kingdom is granted. Second, as discussed earlier, the relationship between the church and the kingdom as Israel is viewed differently by two contrasting positions. From a continuity position, the people of Israel and the church are both part of the people of God, joined together under the one covenant of grace, with the church replacing Israel or fulfilling the promises made to it. From a discontinuity position, while the people of Israel and the church are both part of the people of God, significant differences between the old and new covenants, the diversity of experience of the Holy Spirit, incorporation of Christians into the body of Christ, and the Jewish character of the old covenant people in contrast with the Jewish-(predominantly) Gentile character of the new covenant people underscore the distinctions between the two. Indeed, the church has not replaced Israel nor fulfilled all of the promises made to Israel, and given the Old Testament promises (affirmed in Romans 11) of a bright future for the Jews, a significant divine work awaits them, including their large-scale conversion and national restoration.

A third relationship is that between the church and the kingdom as belonging to the Son of Man/Davidic King. As Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophetic hope for a Son of Man/Davidic King to be a light for all peoples, the church confesses “Jesus is Lord,” acknowledging his absolute kingship while rejecting all other claimants to such allegiance, whether earthly kings or heavenly dominions. Fourth, the church relates to the kingdom as an inaugurated reality, pressing on toward kingdom maturity through suffering for Christ and advancing the human, earthly dimensions of the kingdom. A final relationship is between the church and the kingdom as an eschatological reality, which features the church intensely longing for this angelic announcement: “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever” (Rev. 11:15).

___________________

[1]I will return to this point later in my discussion of multisite churches.

[2]Noted by F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 208.

[3]Peter T. O’Brien, “The Church as a Heavenly and Eschatological Entity,” in The Church in the Bible and the World: An International Study, ed. D. A Carson (Exeter, UK: Paternoster; and Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1987), 93. His citation is from BAG, 240.

[4]O’Brien, “Church as a Heavenly and Eschatological Entity,” 93.

[5]For example, the fact that the usual meaning of the word “gate” is “the movable barrier” in a structure that allows or prohibits access from one place to another does not mean that ticket counters at the Kentucky Derby at Churchill Downs are wrong to announce the “gate” as the number of people who have paid the admission price.

[6]For example, the term “family” can refer to the entity consisting of my wife, Nora, as the mother; me as the [father;] and Lauren, Hanell, and Luke as the children; together we compose the (nuclear) Allison “family.” But the term can also be used to refer to the entity that includes my Scottish ancestors, great-grandparents, grandparents, parents, brother, and a host of others who constitute the (extended) Allison “family.” Considering both uses of the term, some characteristics are true of the Allison “family” in its first sense that are not shared by the Allison “family” in its second sense. For example, my nuclear family lived together, established and observed certain holiday traditions, approached relationships in a certain way, shared certain secrets, laughed and cried because of certain experiences, enjoyed a collective memory, and so forth. As far as my extended family is concerned, other characteristics are true of it: we have common alleles in our gene pool, some similar physical characteristics, a certain religious background (Protestant), and so forth. That the characteristics of the Allison “family” in its nuclear sense are not the same characteristics of the Allison “family” in its extended sense does not mean that one or the other use of the term “family” is illegitimate. So it is with the term “church.”

[7]Daniel C. Lane, “The Meaning and Use of the Old Testament Term for ‘Covenant’ (berît): With Some Implications for Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology” (PhD diss., Trinity International University, 2000), 314. My addition of the phrase “or formalizes” is necessary because a covenant may make formal an already existing relationship between God and another party. Cf. Peter Gentry, “Kingdom through Covenant: Humanity as the Divine Image,” SBJT 12/1 (Spring 2008): 16–42.

[8]I do not hold to the traditional Reformed notion of a covenant of works, according to which Adam and Eve were promised eternal life in Eden as a reward for obedience to the Edenic command (Gen. 2:16–17). For a classic presentation of this covenant, see Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946), 2:117. For an opposing view, see William J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants (1984; repr., Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Paternoster, 2002), 44–46.

[9]The covenantal language used in Genesis 6–9 to describe the Noahic covenant has strong echoes of an earlier covenant. The idea is that God already had a covenant with his creation (specifically, with creation through Adam). Given that he has destroyed most of his original creation, God reestablishes or confirms that earlier (Adamic) covenant with a new (Noahic) covenant with his creation (specifically, with creation through Noah). Cf. Gentry, “Kingdom through Covenant,” 20. This should not be misunderstood to indicate that God was unfaithful to and broke his earlier covenant; no binding obligation prevented God from destroying his original creation. The renewed covenant, however, does include the binding stipulation that God will never again destroy his creation with a flood. Yet, even this obligation does not preclude God from destroying his post-flood creation at some time in the future by some other means (such a destruction—this time by fire—is indeed promised; 2 Pet. 3:7–13). As for the second line of confirmation, in Hosea 6:7 the prophet, speaking of the disobedient people of Israel, laments, “But like Adam they transgressed the covenant.”

[10]Gentry, “Kingdom through Covenant,” 21.

[11]John H. Stek, “‘Covenant’ Overload in Reformed Theology,” Calvin Theological Journal 29 (1994): 40; cited in Gentry, “Kingdom through Covenant,” 21.

[12]The literary structure of this passage is two commands, followed by three promises each. First, God commands Abraham to depart from his country and go to a land that he will be shown; then God promises to make him a great nation, to bless him, and to make his name great. Second, God commands Abraham to be a blessing; then God promises to bless those who bless Abraham, curse those who dishonor Abraham, and bless the families of the earth through Abraham. In terms of narrative structure, Genesis 12 narrates the promise of God to Abraham, Genesis 15 recounts the cutting of (the physical act of establishing) the Abrahamic covenant, and Genesis 17 tells of the fulfillment of the first installment of that covenant, together with the sign of the Abrahamic covenant. My thanks to my colleague Peter Gentry for his insights.

[13]The Old Testament, which features all of the covenants discussed in this section, should not be confused with the old covenant; this latter is only one of several covenants.

[14]As David’s prayer underscores: “Now therefore may it please you to bless the house of your servant, so that it may continue forever before you. For you, O Lord GOD, have spoken, and with your blessing shall the house of your servant be blessed forever” (2 Sam. 7:29).

[15]As reflected in David’s last words: “For does not my house stand so with God? For he has made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and secure. For will he not cause to prosper all my help and my desire?” (2 Sam. 23:5).

[16]Peter Gentry, “Rethinking the ‘Sure Mercies of David’ in Isaiah 55:3,” WTJ 69 (2007): 283. The obligation of the kings of Israel to obey the law of God and to lead the people of Israel into covenantal obedience with them is the probable basis for Jehoiada’s making of “a covenant between the LORD and the king and people, that they should be the LORD’s people, and also between the king and the people” (2 Kings 11:17) and other such similar “covenants” (e.g., Josiah, 2 Kings 23:1–3; Asa, 2 Chron. 15:9–15). These covenants, then, were commitments to be faithful to the Mosaic and Davidic covenants that God had already established. Similarly, the covenants made by Ezra (Ezra 10:1–5) and Nehemiah (Neh. 9:38) were explicit commitments to obey the Law of Moses (Ezra 10:4; Neh. 10:28–39); thus, they were covenants to be faithful to the old covenant.

[17]As Scott Hafemann argues, the immediate situation that Paul was constrained to face in his second letter to the church of Corinth was a challenge to his ministry from a group of Judaizers. In defending his ministry, Paul’s theological supposition was the strong discontinuity between the old covenant and the new covenant in general and between the work of the Holy Spirit in his old covenant ministry and his new covenant ministry. With this theological background, Paul defends the validity of his apostolic work because of the presence and power of the Spirit in it (Scott Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, NIV Application Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000], 115; idem, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3 [Tübingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr Siebeck, 1995], 145–149; cf. David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, New American Commentary [Nashville: B&H, 1999], 162).

[18]Most commentaries underscore this connection; for example: Philip E. Hughes, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962), 89; Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 170; Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, 117–118; idem, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, 145–149.

[19]Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, 133.

[20]Paul has a similar idea: the righteousness of God is ultimately displayed through the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ, “because in his [God’s] divine forbearance he had passed over former sins” (Rom. 3:25). Certainly, forgiveness of sins was available under the old covenant, but the ultimate ground of that forgiveness was the death of Jesus Christ.

[21]In Luke’s account, the expression “new covenant” is found (Luke 22:20; cf. 1 Cor. 11:25).

[22]Geoffrey Wainwright, Doxology: The Praise of God in Worship, Doctrine, and Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), 137.

[23]Affirming the hiddenness of this mystery does not preclude the existence of hints of this future reality in the Old Testament, particularly the Abrahamic covenant (with its promise of blessing for the entire world; Gen. 12:1–3; alluded to in Rom. 15:8) and prophetic literature such as Isa. 42:6–7; 49:5–7. At the same time, the revelation of this mystery awaited full disclosure through the apostles and prophets of the church.

[24]Whereas many would describe the story line of Scripture in terms of four great movements—creation, fall, redemption, and consummation—Vanhoozer is right in including “God’s election, rejection, and restoration of Israel” as Act 2 (following the first act of creation [and permission of the fall], Genesis 1–3) in his five-part drama of doctrine (Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005], 2–3).

[25]We should thus read the first few accounts of non-Jewish conversions to Jesus—the Samaritans (Acts 8:4–25), the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26–40), and Cornelius and his family (Acts 10:1–11:18)—as breaking the pattern of the early church’s evangelism, which was exclusively oriented to the Jews. At the same time, these stories are a foretaste of Gentile receptivity and Jewish callousness to come.

[26]The following citation represents the position of those who place the founding of the church at the calling of Abram and the establishment of the Abrahamic covenant: “Our Lord did not found the Church, for the Church was in the world long before He was. Rather, . . . ‘God gave Him to be Head over all things to the Church’ [Eph. 1:22]. . . . Who then was the Founder of the Church, and when did He found it? The Founder of the Church was Yahweh, . . . and He founded it . . . when he called Abraham. . . .” (Henry Leighton Goudge, The Church of England and Reunion (London: SPCK, 1983), 93–94); cited in James Leo Garrett Jr., Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical, Evangelical, 2 vols. [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995], 2:465).

[27]This intention of Jesus to start and build his church in the future is not found only in this explicit dominical statement. Garrett’s summary of R. Newton Flew’s “position that the church was rooted in the teaching and activity of Jesus” is helpful and focuses on five key points: “his teaching about ‘a new Israel’; his teaching as socioethical so as to presuppose ‘a new community’; his teaching of Messiahship as involving a gathered community; his message as constitutive of community; and the missions of the Twelve and of the Seventy as foreshadowing the mission of a new community” (Garrett, Systematic Theology, 2:465; his reference is to R. Newton Flew, Jesus and His Church: A Study in the Idea of the Ecclesia in the New Testament [New York: Abingdon, 1938], 121–122).

[28]As noted earlier, this outpouring of the Holy Spirit was not part of the experience of the old covenant people of God (Jer. 31:31–34; Ezek. 36:24–27; Joel 2:28–29), but awaited the day of Pentecost.

[29]Flew, Jesus and His Church, 35–39.

[30]Emil Brunner, The Mediator: A Study in the Central Doctrine of the Christian Faith (New York: Macmillan, 1934), 653; George Johnston, The Doctrine of the Church in the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1943), 56.

[31]Graham Twelftree, People of the Spirit: Exploring Luke’s View of the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 16.

[32]Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 853.

[33]Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 4th rev. and enlarged ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 570–571. He notes that his view is in keeping with the historic Reformed position, citing the Belgic Confession (article 27) and the Heidelberg Catechism (21) as illustrations.

[34]Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 730.

[35]Some proponents of the continuity position, like Grudem, do hold to an eschatological hope for the people of Israel, “a future large-scale conversion of the Jewish people (Rom. 11:12, 15, 23–24, 25–26, 28–31)” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 861; cf. 1009, 1104).

[36]Marten H. Woudstra, “Israel and the Church: A Case for Continuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988), 235.

[37]Tom Schreiner, personal correspondence.

[38]Thomas C. Schreiner, “Galatians,” ZECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 382–383; idem, Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 82–83, 482–483; cf. Andreas Köstenberger, “The Identity of the ΊΣΡΗΛ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ [Israel of God] in Galatians 6:16,” Faith and Mission 19/1 (Fall 2001), 13.

[39]Those who support this position include: F. F. Bruce, Galatians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 275; Peter Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 82–84.

[40]This interpretation agrees in part and disagrees in part with Bockmuehl’s contention that “to view the church as anti-Israel, or as anything other than Israel, is already to lose sight of its own identity as the body of Christ, a unity in diversity.” This interpretation agrees with Bockmuehl’s first point and, indeed, goes a long way to dispel the notion that the church is against Israel; rather, the church prays God’s blessing for “the Israel of God.” But it disagrees with Bockmuehl’s second point, that the church and Israel are identical (Markus Bockmuehl, “Is There a New Testament Doctrine of the Church?” in Scripture’s Doctrine and Theology’s Bible: How the New Testament Shapes Christian Dogmatics, ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Alan J. Torrance [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008], 41).

[41]Robert L. Saucy, “Israel and the Church: A Case for Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity, 246; cf. S. Lewis Johnson Jr., “Paul and ‘Israel of God’: An Exegetical and Eschatological Case Study,” in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, ed. Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 190.

[42]Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church, 84.

[43]Johnson, “Paul and ‘Israel of God’,” 187–188.

[44]For a summary of the opposing views and arguments in favor of the continuity position, see Christopher W. Cowan, “Context Is Everything: ‘The Israel of God’ in Galatians 6:16,” SBTJ 14/3 (Fall 2010): 78–85.

[45]For further discussion, see the chapters setting forth the continuity position in Continuity and Discontinuity.

[46]Edmund P. Clowney, The Church: Sacraments, Worship, Ministry, Mission, Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 43. But Clowney’s comments evidence some confusion. First, according to Acts 15, the controversy over circumcision erupted when certain Judaizers insisted that Gentile converts to Christ be circumcised and submit to the Law of Moses. Though these Judaizers pretended to be representatives sent out by the church of Jerusalem, this clearly was not the case. They did not speak for the Jewish Christian majority, who never insisted on circumcision for the Gentiles. Nor did the Jewish Christian group ever indicate that the Judaizers were correct in their assumption that circumcision for Gentiles was proper in terms of spiritual circumcision being appropriate, though their application of that assumption—that the Gentiles should be physically circumcised—was improper. As for this latter group, the Gentiles certainly did not consider themselves to be joining the people of Israel. If they had thought so, they would have willingly submitted to circumcision, not regarded it as such a problem that they sent representatives from their church to the apostles in Jerusalem to challenge those who insisted on their being circumcised. So we cannot imagine that on the basis of the circumcision controversy, either the Jewish Christian majority or the Gentiles “thought of the church as the true Israel.” Second, according to Ephesians 2:11–22, Paul did indeed claim that Christians were joining a new entity, the church (not Israel), which was the “one new man” (Eph. 2:15) consisting of both Jews and Gentiles in one body (Eph. 2:16).

[47]The following discussion is taken from Gregg R. Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 584.

[48]J. N. Darby, “The Rapture of the Saints,” in The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, ed. William Kelly, 14 vols. (1915; repr., Sunbury, PA: Believers Bookshelf, 1972), 11:149.

[49]Ibid. He listed Romans 16:25–26; Ephesians 3:4–5, 9; and Colossians 1:24–26 in support.

[50]Ibid., 11:150–151.

[51]Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology: Ecclesiology—Eschatology (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 34.

[52]Ibid., 45–46. He listed John 14:17 as further biblical support.

[53]Ibid., 16, 19, 28, 29.

[54]Ibid., 41.

[55]Dispensationalism today is commonly divided into three types: classical, revised, and progressive (Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism [Grand Rapids, MI: BridgePoint/Baker, 1991]).

[56]In this Pauline image, the natural branches represent the Jewish people and the wild olive shoots now grafted into the tree represent the Gentiles who have embraced Jesus Christ so as to become the church. Both discontinuity—the natural branches have been broken off but will be grafted in again, while the wild olive shoots are currently grafted into the root—and continuity—the two types of branches are part of the one cultivated olive tree—are emphasized in this image.

[57]When Grudem (Systematic Theology, 863n21) seeks for “any strong reason” for the hope of a future fulfillment of these Old Testament promises for the Jewish people—given many “evident New Testament examples of clear application of these promises to the church”—I think he overlooks the clarity of those Old Testament prophecies themselves. They were, after all, directed originally to the people of Israel; therefore, Jewish readers of those promises rightly concluded these words were given as hope to them. To me, the clarity of Scripture and the integrity of the meaning of the Old Testament demand a future fulfillment. The only way around this, it seems, is to hold to either a theology of forfeiture—that because of Jewish unbelief in Jesus as Messiah, all Old Testament prophecies originally given to the people of Israel have been forfeited—or a replacement theology—the church has completely replaced Israel and thus these promises are now being spiritually fulfilled in the church. I cannot go with either of these positions.

[58]Much of the following has been adapted from Gregg R. Allison, “The Kingdom and the Church,” in The Kingdom of God, ed. Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson, Theology in Community 4 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 179–205. Used by permission.

[59]Some scholars would even say it is the unifying theme for all Scripture; e.g., John Bright, The Kingdom of God (Nashville: Abingdon, 1953), with criticism noted in Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (London: SCM, 1992); Graeme Goldsworthy, The Goldsworthy Trilogy (Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Paternoster, 2000).

[60]Because of his (mis)understanding of the parable of the wheat and the weeds (Matt. 13:24–30, 34–43), Augustine equated the church with the kingdom of God (e.g., City of God 20.9; The Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 3.4–5). This mistaken identification became the basis for his conviction that the church is and is to be a mixed society of Christians (the wheat) and non-Christians (the weeds). Following Augustine’s lead, the Catholic Church considered the church to be the kingdom of God and began to think of it as similar to earthly kingdoms (e.g., Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 302; cited in Allison, Historical Theology, 599–600). As the church became more and more a political power, the church-state model began to monopolize medieval ecclesiology. This development paved the way for military endeavors such as the Crusades; religious persecution of non-Christians and heretics by the Inquisition; political machinations such as investiture (i.e., the pope possessed authority to crown the emperor with the symbols of civil authority) and other church interference in secular matters fueled by papal claims of superiority over the state. In a different manner, but also appealing to the parable of the wheat and the weeds, Reformed theology closely links the church and the kingdom (e.g., John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960], 4.1.13), with the result that Reformed ecclesiology considers the church to be a mixed community of both believers and unbelievers. While I disagree with both views, due in part to their (mis)interpretation of this parable, they are formidable ecclesiologies based on their respective understandings of the relationship between the church and the kingdom of God.

[61]For further discussion of human viceregency, see Brian Keith Payne, “The Summing Up of All Things in Christ and the Restoration of Human Viceregency: Implications for Ecclesiology,” (PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2008).

[62]“Resistance to the institution of the monarchy in Israel . . . was based on the conviction that God should be the sole ruler of his people (Judg. 8:23)” (Charles H. H. Scobie, The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003], 106).

[63]This and similar parables do not seem to emphasize the speed of the growth of the kingdom but the amazing contrast between the size of the kingdom at its inauguration and at its consummation.

[64]George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), 111.

[65]As Jürgen Moltmann explains the kingdom and its relationship to the church, “The church in the power of the Spirit is not yet the kingdom of God, but it is its anticipation in history. Christianity is not yet the new creation, but it is the working of the Spirit of the new creation. Christianity is not yet the new mankind but it is its vanguard, in resistance to deadly introversion and in self-giving and representation for man’s future. . . . In this sense the church of Jesus Christ is the people of the kingdom of God” (Jürgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, trans. Margaret Kohl [New York: Harper & Row, 1977], 196).

[66]In the Old Testament, qahal referred to the congregation of Israel assembled together under Yahweh (Num. 16:3) to hear and respond to (Neh. 13:1–3) his authoritative and revealed word (Deut. 31:30). We see this response specifically in the people assenting to the covenant with Yahweh (Deut. 9:10; 10:4) or their renewing of the covenant (Josh. 8:30–35).

[67]As Herman Bavinck explained with regard to Jesus’ reference to the “church” in Matthew 16:18 and 18:17, “he is therefore still employing it in a very general sense. He does not say whether that , ἐκκλησια, spread itself out over the whole earth. The later distinction between the local church and the universal church cannot yet be found here. Instead, Jesus here states very generally that he will build his ἐκκλησια. . . .” (Herman Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, vol. 4 of Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008], 279). While concurring with Bavinck, I would add that Jesus’ reference to the “church” in Matthew 16:18 certainly includes its concretization in specific local churches. This idea comes out even more strongly in Matthew 18:17, in which Jesus prescribes the steps of discipline that are to be carried out in a specific church racked by the problem of sin among its members.

[68]Ned B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1944), 235.

[69]For an alternative understanding of this prophecy of Amos, see O. Palmer Robertson, “Hermeneutics of Continuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity, 89–108.

[70]Accordingly, as apostles of the church, Barnabas and Paul view their outreach to the Gentiles in terms of identification with the Messiah’s mission to the Gentiles (Acts 13:44–47, with a citation of Isa. 49:6).

[71]In exalting Christ, Paul’s language is clearly taken from Isaiah 45:23, whose context is an affirmation that God alone is God and there is no other (Isa. 45:14, 18, 21, 22). N. T. Wright develops this aspect of the confession “Jesus is Lord” from Philippians 2:5–11: “Paul is not simply articulating a breathtaking vision of who Jesus is, and indeed of who God is. He is also, quite directly and explicitly, subverting the claims of the other great would-be lord of his day, namely Caesar” (N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997], 56–57). The Roman Empire’s persecution against the early church was often motivated by its understanding that Christians were atheists, that is, they refused to acknowledge that “Caesar is Lord.” Certainly, this refusal grew out of the subversion inherent in their confession that “Jesus is Lord.”

[72]In affirming this social engagement, I am not propounding the relationship between the church and the kingdom that developed within liberal Protestant theology in the twentieth century, specifically articulated by the social gospel movement. Walter Rauschenbusch’s A Theology for the Social Gospel was a seminal work in this development. It contrasted the kingdom and the church, bemoaning the loss of a theology of the kingdom and an accompanying weakening of Christianity’s “ethical force”: “Thus the religious energy and enthusiasm which might have saved mankind from its great sins were used up in hearing and endowing masses, or in maintaining competitive church organizations, while mankind is still stuck in the mud” (Walter Rauschenbusch, A Theology for the Social Gospel [1917; repr., Nashville: Abingdon, 1978], 134). As the church’s conscience became muffled, the result was a neglect of the church’s social agenda (ibid., 135). Positively, Rauschenbusch articulated his vision for the realization of the kingdom of God on earth. This would come about through the “redemption of social life from the cramping influence of religious bigotry, from the repression of self-assertion in the relation of upper and lower classes, and from all forms of slavery in which human beings are treated as mere means to serve the ends of others. . . . from political autocracies and economic oligarchies. . . . from private property in the natural resources of the earth, and from any condition in industry which makes monopoly profits possible” (ibid., 142–143). Rauschenbusch’s theology for the social gospel called for a restitution of emphasis of the kingdom of God over and against the church. By seeking to establish the kingdom—the “Christian transfiguration of the social order”—the church would find its true missional nature and purpose (ibid., 145). I am not advocating such a vision.

[73]Again, I am not proposing a social engagement along the lines of the contemporary tendency that can be found among churches and proponents of the so-called emergent or emerging church phenomenon. A key element of this phenomenon is a reevaluation of the adequacy of the gospel communicated by the church, with an accompanying criticism of the evangelical truncation of the gospel message. For example, see Brian D. McLaren, “The Method, the Message, and the Ongoing Story,” in The Church in Emerging Culture: Five Perspectives, ed. Leonard Sweet (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 212–213; Ray S. Anderson, An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 77–95. Churches sympathetic to this critique call for a closer integration of the gospel, the church, and the kingdom. Specifically, proponents urge a concerted effort to reduce what has been a historical division between the sacred and the secular. This move has ramifications for the church and the kingdom: “While the church tends to differentiate itself from the world by its religious nature, the kingdom of God penetrates and transforms the world by its secular nature” (Anderson, Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches, 111). Thus, the church is not to be an entity isolated in sacred space and concerned primarily about spiritual matters; rather, the church is to be about the kingdom of God. Certainly, Anderson and others like him have rightly criticized a domesticated form of Christianity typified by evangelical churches that are ends in themselves and tragically unconcerned about exerting a kingdom impact on the surrounding world. At the same time, this emphasis on the kingdom prompts a diminution of sound doctrine and practice in some quarters. For a reasoned critique of this movement and an alternative strengthening of the bonds between the gospel, the church, and the kingdom, see Todd L. Miles, “A Kingdom without a King? Evaluating the Kingdom Ethic(s) of the Emerging Church,” SBJT 12/1 (Spring 2008): 88–103.

[74]Accordingly, the church prays to the Father, “Your kingdom come” (Matt. 6:9).

[75]Two other eschatological perspectives—amillennialism and postmillennialism—are important evangelical positions on the end times. The first identifies the millennium with the present church age and holds out future hope for the return of Christ—along with the contemporaneous events of resurrection and judgment—to be followed immediately by the new heaven and new earth. The second holds that, through the preaching of the gospel and the Christianization of the world, this present church age will gradually yield to a golden age of peace and prosperity, to be followed by the return of Christ, resurrection, judgment, and the new heaven and new earth.

[76]For believers who are alive when Christ returns, their resurrection body will replace their current earthly body (2 Cor. 5:4), an instantaneous transformation (1 Cor. 15:51–52) needed because “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable” (1 Cor. 15:50).

[77]According to some premillennialists, the millennium will feature the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies of a national restoration of the Jewish people to the land of Israel; thus, the millennial kingdom will be strongly Jewish in flavor.

II

THE BIBLICAL VISION—

CHARACTERISTICS

OF THE CHURCH

CHAPTER

THREE

CHARACTERISTICS REGARDING THE ORIGIN AND ORIENTATION OF THE CHURCH

INTRODUCTION

I come now to my core discussion of the ontology of the church. In the next two chapters I will set forth what I believe to be a vision of the church that is rooted in Scripture and that considers wisdom from the past in terms of historical theology.

As already introduced, the identity of the church consists of seven characteristics, the first three of which relate to the origin and orientation of the church. The final four concern the gathering and sending of the church. Specifically, the church is (1) doxological, or oriented to the glory of God; (2) logocentric, or focused on the Word of God, understood to refer to Jesus Christ the incarnate Word and Scripture the inspired Word; (3) pneumadynamic, or created, gathered, gifted, and empowered by the Holy Spirit; (4) covenantal, or gathered as members in (new) covenant relationship with God and in covenant relationship with each other; (5) confessional, or united by both personal confession of faith in Christ and common confession of the historic Christian faith; (6) missional, or identified as the body of divinely called and divinely sent ministers to proclaim the gospel and advance the kingdom of God; and (7) spatio-temporal/eschatological, or assembled as a historical reality (located in space and time) and possessing a certain hope and clear destiny while it lives the strangeness of ecclesial existence in the here-and-now.

This chapter develops the first three of these characteristics of the church, regarding its origin and the orientation. Because its very existence is due to the triune God and his salvific work through Jesus Christ the Son and in the Holy Spirit, the church directs itself to the glory of God while focusing on the Word of God, always empowered by the Spirit of God. Chapter 4 will develop the four characteristics that concern the gathering and sending of the church. The sovereign headship that Jesus Christ exercises over and through his body, the church, possesses a covenant-relationship structure, demands a confession of faith/the faith, creates a sent people engaged in the mission of God, and providentially gathers Christ-followers in space and time as pilgrims in this world.

As noted in chapter 1, while the last half century or so has witnessed a turn toward functional ecclesiologies, my ontological approach to this doctrine has a long and illustrious history, so what I do in these next two chapters is far from novel, at least in terms of historical approach if not in historical content. The earliest ecclesiology formulated by the early church affirmed four attributes of the church, essential characteristics that together compose what has come to be called the Great Tradition of the church—the church is “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.” These traditional attributes are very important in our historical study of ecclesiology and are part of the legacy that we as the twenty-first-century church and its theologians have inherited (and neglect to our peril).[1] However, the historical, theological, and cultural realities that formed the backdrop for the formulation of that definition of the church were significantly different from the realities that face us today, and this prompts me to reconsider whether focusing on these attributes is the most helpful for my current ecclesiological thinking and formulation. As Barth indicated, creeds express the church’s resistance to strange voices,[2] and I’m not convinced that the same unsettling conversations are going on today such that repetition of the traditional four attributes will repel the voices troubling the contemporary church. Modifying slightly A. M. Ramsey’s wise advice, “our view of the church had better be evangelical [rather] than archaeological.”[3]

Furthermore, Reformation ecclesiology focused on the essential marks of a true church and variously identified two such marks (the ministry of the Word and the administration of the ordinances),[4] three such marks (with the exercise of church discipline added to the two marks),[5] or seven such marks (Luther’s ministry of the Word, administration of baptism, administration of the Lord’s Supper, the exercise of church discipline, the office of ministry, worship, and suffering).[6] Again, this heritage is very important for the twenty-first-century church and its theologians, but it should be noted that these marks were articulated and defended in a particular historical context in which the need to distinguish between the true churches of the Reformation and the false Catholic Church was acutely felt. Though the need continues today to distinguish between true and false churches (which cannot be confined to the Catholic Church), the present context is sufficiently different to demand advancement in ecclesiological thinking and discussion.[7]

Naturally, the question is raised: why do I believe that these seven attributes are the characteristics of the church? I believe that this vision of the church is grounded in Scripture and reflective of wisdom from the past through historical theology. As I define and discuss these seven characteristics, I will show the biblical foundation that warrants them as the identity markers of the church.

The claim that these seven characteristics encapsulate a biblical vision of the church is patient of misunderstanding. By this claim I do not intend to indicate that a church that only faintly possesses one or more of these attributes, or allows one or more of these attributes to atrophy, cannot be considered a church. Its temporal character should remind us that the church is an assembly that experiences ebb and flow over time. What a church once was during a period of strong leadership and the evident outpouring of divine empowerment and spiritual renewal may have given way to a certain impoverishment in leaner times; but the church is still the church. The eschatological character of the church further reminds us that no church will be all that God intends for it to be in this earthly pilgrimage; thus, expectations of a church’s manifestation of these seven attributes must be realistically adjusted for a pre-parousia existence. What must also be considered, however, is the fact that a church may intentionally reject one or more of these attributes; such catastrophic abandonment of these characteristics renders a church a non-church. Deliberate and persistent wholesale jettisoning of its logocentricity or missional identity, for example, will result in an apostate entity—a false church that once was a true church, but is no longer.[8]

Setting forth a vision of the church is not an exercise in painting some idealized portrait but instead offers a biblically grounded goal toward which the church during its earthly pilgrimage advances. If I am on target with my presentation, this vision should aid the church in pursuing God’s revealed will for it, a pursuit that will be prayerfully accompanied by divine empowerment for its increasing realization.[9]

THE CHURCH IS DOXOLOGICAL

The church is doxological, or oriented to the glory (Gk. doxa) of God. In one sense, all that God has created is characterized by this doxological orientation.[10] “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Ps. 19:1), and the faithful living in a sin-spoiled creation pray, “Be exalted, O God, above the heavens! Let your glory be over all the earth!” (Ps. 108:5; 72:19). Within the heavenly realm, divinely created angels are urged to give God glory: “Ascribe to the LORD, O heavenly beings, ascribe to the LORD glory and strength. Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name; worship the LORD in the splendor of holiness” (Ps. 29:1–2). The thrice repeated “Holy, Holy, Holy” of the seraphim, resoundingly echoed in Isaiah’s vision of the exalted Lord (Isa. 6:1–3), illustrates this unceasing heavenly declaration of the divine glory. Within the earthly realm, divinely created human beings are “crowned . . . with glory and honor” (Ps. 8:5; cf. 1 Cor. 11:7) and are expected to “declare his [God’s] glory among the nations, his marvelous works among all the peoples! For great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised, and he is to be feared above all gods” (1 Chron. 16:24–25; Ps. 96:3–4). Tragically, all people at all times and in all places foolishly and reprehensibly suppress the truth that God has revealed through the created order, having “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things” (Rom. 1:23). Because of this idolatry, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).

The situation is reversed for Christians, so that they who “hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory” (Eph. 1:12). Jesus himself explained that those who are regenerated by the Holy Spirit are qualified for this doxological purpose. In John’s Gospel, Jesus urges Nicodemus, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:5–6). Those who are born again are given a new nature; their new identity is “spirit.” In the next chapter, Jesus’ discussion with the Samaritan woman concludes with this profound instruction: “But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:23–24). Those who are born again of the Spirit, who possesses “a spirit-nature where ‘spirit’ is related to the sphere of God and things divine (as in 4:24),”[11] have been qualified as genuine worshipers to engage in authentic worship of God.[12]

Given this doxological orientation of the creaturely realm in general and of Christians in particular, it is fitting that the church is characterized by the same reality. Indeed, after adumbrating several truths about the church—it is “the fullness of him [Christ] who fills all in all” (Eph. 1:23), a structure that is growing into “a holy temple in the Lord. . . . a dwelling place for God by the Spirit” (Eph. 2:21–22)—Paul prays that to God “be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever” (Eph. 3:21). Because it has been established as a temple in which the fullness of Christ the Lord dwells through the Holy Spirit, the church is to be oriented toward the glory of God. Its members, then, are “like living stones [who] are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 2:5); specifically, they are to “continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name” (Heb. 13:15–16). The proclamation of the excellencies of the God who has been merciful to it is the doxological raison-d’être of the church (1 Pet. 2:9–10).

As seen above, the metaphor of temple seems best to capture this attribute of the church, and Paul makes use of it again in 1 Corinthians 3:16–17 and 2 Corinthians 6:16.[13] The glorious presence of God himself dwelt in Israel’s temple, to which faithful worshipers would come to experience mercy through sacrifice and to offer praise and thanksgiving. “Paul saw the Church, the people of God, as the worshipping building of God. . . . It is the temple God indwells . . . present by his Spirit. It is therefore the place of encounter with God and sharing in that same Spirit. The one who worships is struck by the fact that God is truly among his people (1 Cor. 14:25).”[14] Metaphorically, then, the church, as the temple of God, experiences his manifest presence as it gathers together in Christ’s name and on the basis of forgiveness obtained through his sacrifice, to engage in giving the God of glory the great praise and honor due his name.

Accordingly, the church is to be orthodoxological, or oriented to the proper (Gk. ortho) glory (Gk. doxa) of God. Implied in this imperative is the possibility for the church to engage in false glory giving, or idolatry. Certainly this is the reality of fallen human beings enmeshed in sin (Rom. 1:18–25). Tragically, this was the plight of the people of Israel, as rehearsed throughout the Old Testament and recalled by Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:1–22. This recounting of Israel’s woes is to warn the church (1 Cor. 10:6, 11), which too may fall into false glory giving and thus must “flee from idolatry” (v. 14), specifically in regard to the Lord’s Supper: Christians cannot continue to engage in both pagan temple worship and the worship of the one true God (vv. 20–21). The church is “the church of the living God” (1 Tim. 3:15), not of false gods and idols. Appropriately, the apostle John, after emphasizing that Jesus Christ “is the true God and eternal life,” concludes with this imperative: “Little children, keep yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:20–21).[15]

The church must face the fact that it remains susceptible to idolatry; it can become heterodoxological. Paul addresses this tragic temptation in 2 Corinthians 11:1–4, confronting the reality of the Corinthian church being enticed to false glory giving through the substitution of a different Jesus, a different spirit, or a different gospel for its rightful and true focus of attention. Moved with divine jealousy—not the improper envy or covetousness so typical of human jealousy, but “a pure, intense, possessive desire to love the Corinthians and to be loved by the Corinthians within the sanctity of an exclusive covenant commitment”[16]—the apostle would stop at nothing—including being considered foolish by his dear friends for highlighting his accomplishments and defending his authority (a tactic he normally eschewed)—to halt their slide into settling for “less wild lovers.”[17] Accordingly, “acting as either father of the bride or friend of the bridegroom—the language could accommodate either image—Paul has betrothed the Corinthian church to her one heavenly husband and to him only, and the apostle bears a responsibility to present her to him on their wedding day a virgo intacta.”[18] His very real fear is that the church “will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.”[19] Idolatry is an enemy of the church, which is to be orthodoxological.

In addition to being directed at unworthy objects, heterodoxological engagement by the church includes confusion in speech, purposelessness, disorder, and violation of authority-submission relationships. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul rules out cacophonous or unintelligible speaking in the church through his preference for the exercise of the gift of prophecy above the gift of speaking in tongues (vv. 1–25), and his insistence that in the church those who speak in tongues do so with limitation (“two or at most three,” v. 27) and with the assurance that their speech will be interpreted (vv. 5, 13, 28). Paul dismisses purposelessness in the church by way of his constant refrain that when the church is corporately gathered together, everything should be done “for building up” and instructive encouragement (vv. 5, 12, 17, 19, 26, 31). Disorder is a heterodoxological element in the church’s worship that must be avoided by taking turns speaking in tongues with interpretation and communicating prophecies with evaluation (vv. 27–32); neither of these is ecstatic speech that is not under the control of the communicator. Moreover, a theological reason inveighs against church disorder: “For God is not a God of confusion but of peace” (v. 33); thus, “all things should be done decently and in order” (v. 40).[20] Finally, violation of the authority-submission relationship between men and women in the church is to be avoided. Practically speaking, this entails the exclusion of women members from participating in the evaluation of spoken prophecies (vv. 34–35).[21]

In summary, the first characteristic in my biblical vision is that the church is doxological, or oriented to the glory of God. That all of creation—the natural world, human beings in general, the people of Israel, angels—is to be similarly oriented may make the doxological character of the church common, but this fact does not render it unremarkable. Through Jesus Christ, God has established the church as the (new) temple of the Holy Spirit; as such, it aims to be orthodoxological while avoiding idolatry of all kinds.

THE CHURCH IS LOGOCENTRIC

The church is logocentric, or focused on the Word (Gk. logos) of God, understood to refer to Jesus Christ the incarnate Word and Scripture the inspired Word. These two aspects of this attribute of the church will be treated in order.

Logos: Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word of God

In the beginning of his Gospel, John introduces his readers to the Logos (John 1:1): at the time that the universe was created (“in the beginning,” a phrase reminiscent of Gen. 1:1), something—the Logos—was already in existence and in relationship with God (“the Word was with God”); moreover, the logos was God himself (“the Word was God”). Furthermore, the Logos was the agent of creation (John 1:3) as well as the source of eternal life (v. 4). In some sense, as the true light, the Logos, in becoming incarnate, enlightens all people everywhere since that event (v. 9). Tragically, though all people everywhere owe their existence to the Logos, “the world did not know him” (v. 10). More specifically, “He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” (vv. 11–12). This Logos is none other than the eternal Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, who took on human nature in the incarnation (v. 14). Indeed, this incarnate Logos, the God-man Jesus Christ (v. 17), is the visible revelation of the invisible God (v. 18).

Because the Logos is all this—God himself, the creator of all things, the eternal life of human beings, the incarnate Son of God, the revelation of the Father—it should go without saying that the church is centered on him as the Word of God. Scripture makes this explicit: Jesus calls what he is building “my church” (Matt. 16:18). Concerning this church construction, Paul adds that it is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20; cf. 1 Pet. 2:4–6). The imagery of cornerstone is intended to emphasize the centrality of Jesus Christ to the church: as the principal stone of the building from which the rest of the edifice takes alignment, the cornerstone holds the place of supreme importance.[22] Appropriately, Jürgen Moltmann draws out an implication for ecclesiology:

The doctrine of the church, therefore, where it concerns the foundation of the church and the conditions in which it exists, is indissolubly connected with the doctrine of Jesus, the Christ of God. The name the church gives itself—the church of Jesus Christ—requires us to see Christ as the subject of his church and to bring the church’s life into alignment with him. Thus ecclesiology can only be developed from christology, as its consequence and in correspondence with it.[23]

A second metaphor emphasizes even more this logocentric element of the church: Jesus Christ is head of his body, which is the church. “The allusions in Scripture to the church as the body of Christ, and the usage of such in church teaching, make it not only a fertile source of theological commentary on the nature of the church but also a pointer to the specific relation of the second Person to the church’s being.”[24] Paul employs this imagery at the conclusion of his prayer for the Ephesian Christians (Eph. 1:20–23; cf. Col. 1:15–20; 2:9–10). The mighty power of God was made manifest in four events: the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, his session at the authoritative right hand of God the Father in heaven, the subjection of all things under the sovereignty of Christ, and the giving of Christ as head over all things to the church. Specifically, Christ as the humiliated, crucified, and resurrected God-man was supremely exalted above all existing beings and powers in the heavenly realms,[25] realities existing both in this current age and in the eschaton. He now rules sovereignly over all things; spatially described, they are “under his feet” in subjection, and Christ has been given “as head” over all these subjugated realities for the benefit of the church. Thus, his sovereign headship is first and foremost cosmic in scope—he rules over the entirety of existing realities—and then specifically ecclesial—as the head over all things, he is also head of the church, which is his body. Indeed, the notion of Christ as the head is not derived from the image of the church as his body but is due to the fact that all things have been subjected to him.[26] As head of the church, Christ is to hold the central place. Furthermore, the church as the body of Christ is “the fullness of him who fills all in all” (Eph. 1:23). That is, Christ completely fills the church for its benefit with his exalted power as sovereign Lord over all things.[27] Accordingly, he “pervades all things with his sovereign rule, directing all things to their appointed end (Heb. 1:3), and this entails his functioning as the powerful ruler over against the principalities ([Eph.] 1:21) and giving grace and strength to his people, the church (4:13, 15–16).”[28] It is to this powerful, sovereign, and gracious Lord that the church is to yield. The church is logocentric—centered on Jesus Christ, the Word of God.

Appropriately, Alan Hirsch raises the question, “What are the irreducible minimums of a true expression of ecclesia?” He concludes there are two, the second of which is

Centered on Jesus: He is the new covenant with God and he thus forms as the true epicenter of an authentic Christ-ian faith. An ecclesia is not just a God-community—there are many such religious communities around. We are defined by our relationship to the Second Person of the Trinity, the Mediator, Jesus Christ. A covenant community centered around Jesus participates in the salvation that he brings. We receive the grace of God in him.[29]

Logos: Scripture, the Inspired Word of God

This saving grace of God is made known through the Word of God, intended in a different sense of logos. In this second sense also, the church is logocentric—centered on Scripture, the inspired Word. Specifically, canonical Scripture is inspired, sufficient, necessary, truthful (or inerrant), clear, authoritative, and productive. Speaking about “the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus,” Paul explains that “all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:15–17). The inspiration of Scripture may be affirmed because of the Holy Spirit’s superintendence of the biblical authors as they personally composed their writings (2 Pet. 1:19–21); thus, the writing of Scripture was a confluent or concursive process involving both the human authors, who constructed their narratives, psalms, letters, and other writings using their grammatical abilities, choices of literary genre, and theological perspectives, and the Holy Spirit’s particular guidance of them and their work. The outcome of this Spirit-superintended, human writing process was the actual inspired words of God that provide great benefit for Christians: Scripture is profitable for teaching, or the communication of authoritative and wisdom-inculcating theological truth; reproof, or the highlighting of sinful attitudes and actions from which Christians must turn; correction, or the pointing out of the proper road to pursue; and training in righteousness, or the preparation of mature Christ-followers.

By interpreting properly and following inspired Scripture—obeying its commands, trusting its promises, heeding its warnings, acting on its instructions, following its wisdom—Christians will be sufficiently prepared to please God in whatever he requires of them. This sufficiency of Scripture is definitely circumscribed. It is not exhaustive of all matters in life, but it is exhaustive relative to its purpose: to lead non-Christians to faith in Jesus Christ so they may be saved, and to equip Christ-followers in the ways of godly living and the church in fruitful ministry. Within these spheres, however, nothing is to be added to it or subtracted from it. Because it is profitable for these matters, Scripture is also necessary: Christians cannot have what God has designed for them apart from his written Word.

As the one who speaks does not and cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18), Scripture as the Word of God is wholly true in everything that it affirms; indeed, Jesus echoes prayerfully to the Father, “Your word is truth” (John 17:17). Not only has God communicated truthfully; he has also spoken clearly in his Word. Appropriately, two metaphors are used for Scripture—it is a lamp and a light (2 Pet. 1:19; Ps. 119:105). These images imply that Scripture clearly communicates its instructions so that they may be understood and heeded by its readers/hearers. The presumption of continued intelligibility characterizes all of Scripture, as the Old Testament foresees its instructions being read and received by future generations in very different socioeconomic-political contexts (Deut. 30:11–14; 31:9–13) and the New Testament harkens back to earlier (Jewish) Scripture for the benefit of the church (1 Cor. 10:6, 11; Rom. 4:23–24; 15:4).[30]

With God as its divine author, Scripture as the Word of God possesses divine authority to command what Christians are to believe, do, and be, and to prohibit what they are to avoid. Certainly, other authorities exist within the realm of human endeavor (e.g., parents, employers); that which Scripture possesses, then, is not sole authority but ultimate authority, and it is that because it is the Word of God who rules over all. It is to be heeded in all things as unto the Lord himself (1 Thess. 4:1–2). Authoritative Scripture is also productive, effectively procuring the result designed by God (Isa. 55:10–11).[31]

The church is to be centered on this inspired, sufficient, necessary, truthful, clear, authoritative, and productive Word of God.[32] As P. T. Forsyth urged, “If we are not going to use our Bible, it is of no use building our Churches.”[33] This has specific reference to the gospel, or good news of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15:1–9). The call of God to salvation comes through the gospel (2 Thess. 2:13–14). Furthermore, by means of “the living and abiding word of God”—later described as “the good news that was preached to you” (1 Pet. 1:25)—people experience the new birth (v. 23) and thus become a part of the redeemed people of the church. As John Webster explains, “Scripture is not the word of the church; the church is the church of the word. . . . The church exists in the space which is made by the Word. Accordingly, it is not a self-generated assembly.”[34] Unsurprisingly, then, the church’s communication of the gospel is absolutely necessary in order for people to be saved and for the church to exist and mature. Working from the truth that “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Rom. 10:13), Paul emphasizes the preaching of the good news (vv. 14–16) because “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (v. 17). Accordingly, Forsyth exhorts the church: “Our first business is neither to gather men nor to move them, but to preach in the speech of our time . . . the universal and moving Gospel. Let it gather them, and let it stir them. The first condition of a true revival is a sound Gospel. To revive the Church, revive its Gospel as given once for all in its Bible.”[35]

Beyond its responsibility to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, the church is to teach sound doctrine for the advancement of its members and its own development. Sound doctrine is connected with maturity in the Christian faith and the privilege of leadership in the church. Indeed, Paul identifies his apostolic work as that of furthering “the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness” (Titus 1:1). He describes “a good servant of Christ Jesus” as one who is “trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine” (1 Tim. 4:6), who follows “the pattern of the sound words” learned from him, and who guards “the good deposit” entrusted to him (2 Tim. 1:13–14). Regarding the qualifications for being an elder, Paul indicates that such a leader must “hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9). Negatively, a person who is outside of the Christian faith is described as one who “teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness” (1 Tim. 6:3). Finally, Paul warns the church, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths” (2 Tim. 4:3–4). The logocentricity of the church is clearly affirmed and warranted.

Of course, the Word of God not only stands against false teachers and their false teachings; it stands over the disobedience, faithlessness, pride, underdevelopment, legalism, selfishness, xenophobia, lethargy, and other sins of the church and its members. Appropriately, the Bible is “our adversary”; it always confronts with existential demands for reformation. As John Webster notes, “Scripture is as much a de-stabilizing feature of the church as it is a factor in its cohesion and continuity.”[36] Gathered as the community of the Word, the church draws life and sustenance from Scripture in its midst, but it also receives conviction and rebuke from Scripture as it journeys on a pilgrim path that needs constant redirecting in order for the church to reach its ultimate destination. Among the sins for which Scripture chastises the church are: factionalism leading to disunity (1 Cor. 1:10–13; Gal. 5:20), preferential treatment (James 2:1–13; illustrated in Acts 6:1–7), causing one another to stumble (Rom. 14:13–23; 1 Corinthians 8), passing judgment rather than mutual acceptance (Rom. 14:1–12), lawsuits (1 Cor. 6:1–8), abuse of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:17–34), hypocrisy (Gal. 2:11–14), falling back into Judaism (Col. 2:16–23; Galatians; Hebrews), worldliness (James 4:1–10; 1 Cor. 3:1–4), caustic speech (James 3:1–12; Eph. 4:25, 29; 5:4), disagreements (Phil. 4:2–3), sexual immorality (1 Cor. 6:12–7:7; 1 Thess. 4:1–8), idleness (2 Thess. 3:6–12), and much more. As the church is confronted by the Word of God, it should be “destabilized” and then repent of such sins and embrace the right way of godliness.[37]

Two dangers of misunderstanding lurk in the above discussion. The first, a holdover from neo-orthodox and evangelical bibliology, is the personal versus propositional view of revelation.[38] My presentation of the logocentricity of the church should not be divided up into personal revelation (Jesus Christ as the Word of God) over against propositional revelation (Scripture as the Word of God). Scripture features a rich tapestry of revelational concepts, including the revelation of the Father and the Son (Matt. 11:25–26), the revelation of the gospel (Gal. 1:12), the revelation of the mystery of the inclusion of the Gentiles in the church (Eph. 3:1–6), prophetic messages for the building up of the church (1 Cor. 14:26, 30), even the revelation of specific journeying instruction (Gal. 2:1–2). This rich texture defies any simplistic reduction of revelation into personal versus propositional categories. Furthermore, the notion that the mighty acts of God do not or cannot include mighty speech acts—the writings of Scripture—that are propositional in nature is illogical. Moreover, as the revelation of God in person, Jesus Christ communicated propositionally through many genres, including narratives, proverbs, didactic presentations, parables, apocalyptic messages, and other literary types. And as propositional revelation, Scripture comes personally from the triune God with the intention of initiating and nurturing a personal relationship with his fallen human creatures in the human society called the church. Accordingly, revelation is both propositional and personal.

The second potential misunderstanding is that I am advocating bibliolatry. I am not elevating the Word of God intended as Scripture to a hypostasis of the Godhead and, as such, worthy of worship. Scripture is inspired writing of God and as such is divine revelation, and I have distinguished it from the incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ, who is to be worshiped because he is the divine-human person.

In summary, the second characteristic in my biblical vision is logocentricity: the church is to be focused on the Word (Gk. logos) of God, understood to refer to Jesus Christ the incarnate Word and Scripture the inspired Word.

THE CHURCH IS PNEUMADYNAMIC[39]

The church is pneumadynamic, or created, gathered, gifted, and empowered by the Holy Spirit.[40] This is not to deny the very important work of the Spirit in establishing, delivering, sanctifying, and leading the people of Israel under the old covenant; at the same time, the new covenant work of the Holy Spirit is pronouncedly more extensive and intensive (as discussed in chapter 2). In the church this work of the Holy Spirit consists of numerous ministries, which could be described as encompassing the entirety of Christ-followers’ experience of salvation.[41] Indeed, even before people embrace Jesus Christ for salvation, the Holy Spirit is powerfully at work to convict them of sin, self-righteousness, and false judgment (John 16:8–11). As this conviction sets in, the Holy Spirit brings about regeneration, or the giving of new spiritual life in the place of spiritual death (Titus 3:5–6). People are “born again” and remade into a “new creation” (John 3:3–5; 2 Cor. 5:17). Moreover, these new Christians are sealed with the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13–14), marked out as belonging to God with the Spirit as the firstfruits (Rom. 8:23) or down payment (2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5), the guarantee that they will one day experience the fullness of God’s presence and blessing when Christ returns. Subjectively, the Holy Spirit bears witness to Christ-followers that they truly belong to God forever (Rom. 8:16). Furthermore, Jesus Christ baptizes these new believers with the Holy Spirit, thereby incorporating them into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). These are the various ministries of the Holy Spirit at the beginning of salvation.

This powerful working of the Spirit continues throughout the lives of Christians as he progressively transforms them into greater and greater conformity to the image of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 3:18); indeed, the Holy Spirit is singled out as being particularly responsible for sanctification (1 Pet. 1:2). He provides everything that is needed to overcome the power of sin, and by the fruit he produces Christians exhibit more and more the characteristics of Jesus Christ in their lives (Gal. 5:16–23). For this reason Christians are to be guided by the Spirit (Rom. 8:4–8) or filled with the Spirit (Eph. 5:18), that is, controlled by and submissive to his leading. The Spirit also aids them in prayer (Rom. 8:26–27) and illumines their understanding of the Word of God (1 Cor. 2:10–16).

The work of the Holy Spirit will one day find its culmination in the reality of glorification. Just as God raised his crucified Son from the dead, so will the Spirit of God who lives in Christ-followers raise up their mortal bodies when Jesus Christ returns again (Rom. 8:11). This powerful work of resurrection will bring about the completion of the salvation that was begun in the lives of Christians.

While these variegated ministries of the Holy Spirit in the lives of Christ-followers are of great importance, Wolfhart Pannenberg reminds us, “The gift of the Spirit is not just for individual believers but aims at the building up of the fellowship of believers, at the founding and the constant giving of new life to the church. . . . By the Spirit each is lifted above individual particularity in order, ‘in Christ,’ to form with all other believers the fellowship of the church.”[42] Specific ministries of the Holy Spirit are directed at the building up and strengthening of churches. Indeed, it is through the work of the Spirit that churches come into existence in the first place. As already noted, the day of Pentecost was the inauguration of the church. From its beginning in Jerusalem, this church multiplied and extended through the evangelistic movement orchestrated by the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8; illustrated 16:6–16). As Horton underscores, “The Spirit is an extrovert, always going forth on mission with his Word, creating an extroverted community that can at last look up to God in faith and out to the world in love, witness, and service.”[43] In these churches birthed and nurtured by him, the Spirit is responsible for the distribution of spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12:11). The Spirit himself sovereignly decides which members receive which gifts, which include such abilities as teaching, leading, faith, mercy, serving, and many more. The overriding purpose for these gifts is to bring blessing to the church; their exercise is for “the common good” (v. 7). This common good is also promoted by the Holy Spirit, who is the creator and sustainer of unity in the community of faith. Churches do not have to attempt to create unity among their members; the Spirit provides that for them (Eph. 4:3). What must instead happen is that churches are to work hard to maintain that unity, which seems to be fragile and undergo breakdowns because of the sinfulness of church members (Eph. 4:30; 1 Thess. 5:19). Mindful that they are natural enemies who have been brought together not naturally but by the grace of God through Jesus Christ,[44] church members rely on the Holy Spirit to be able to express genuine love toward one another (Rom. 15:30; Col. 1:8) in an atmosphere of righteousness, peace, and joy fostered by the Spirit (Rom. 14:17). Metaphorically, the church is a temple in which the Holy Spirit of God dwells (1 Cor. 3:16–17); by this reality, the church is rendered holy. Moreover, certain people in each church have been installed as leaders by the appointment of the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28; illustrated in 13:2–3). By these means, the Holy Spirit works powerfully to inaugurate, build up, and strengthen churches.

Accordingly, the church is pneumadynamic. At the same time, this attribute must be considered in relation to the first two already discussed. John Webster does this admirably and underscores an important implication of pneumatology for ecclesiology:

This rooting of the doctrine of the church in the doctrine of the Spirit has one crucial effect. It ensures that the third element of the economy of salvation—the making real of reconciliation in human life and history—is as much a divine work as the first element (the Father’s purpose) and the second (its accomplishment by the Son). In ecclesiology we are within the sphere of the perfection and sovereignty of God. There can be no sense in which, while God’s first and second works are pure grace, his third work involves some kind of coordination of divine and creaturely elements. . . . The church is what it is because in the Holy Spirit God has completed the circle of his electing and reconciling work, and consummated his purpose of gathering the church to himself.[45]

Moreover, if with the second attribute above I claim that the church is the community of the Word, I must also underscore with this third attribute that the church is the community of the Holy Spirit. In his Apostolic Traditions (c. 215) Hippolytus addressed a responsibility of believers before they go to work: “if there should be an instruction in the word let each one prefer to go there [to the church], considering that it is God whom he hears speaking by the mouth of him who instructs. . . . And therefore let each one be careful to go to the assembly (ἐκκλησία) to the place where the Holy Spirit abounds.”[46] This Spirit-Word (Gk. pneuma [spirit], plus logos [word]; hence, pneumatological) balance was once a hallmark of Protestant churches; at the time of the Reformation, Luther and Calvin hailed this unity with remarkable clarity and persuasion. Explaining God’s twofold work, Luther commented on the Word (which includes both the gospel that is preached for the forgiveness of sins and the sacraments that portray the same promise of forgiveness) and the Spirit:

Outwardly he deals with us through the preached Word, or the gospel, and through the visible signs of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Inwardly he deals with us through the Holy Spirit and faith. But this is always in such a way and in this order that the outward means must precede the inward means, and the inward means comes after through the outward means. So, then, God has willed that he will not give to anyone the inward gifts (of the Spirit and faith) except through the outward means (of the Word and the sacraments).[47]

Thus, for Luther, the Spirit of God carries out his ministry in believers through the Word of God. And the Spirit of God is absolutely necessary for understanding the Word of God.[48]

Similarly, Calvin insisted that the Spirit of God and the Word of God are inseparably linked. He thus criticized the Catholic Church for boasting “of the Holy Spirit solely to commend with his name strange doctrines foreign to God’s Word—while the Spirit wills to be joined with God’s Word by an indissoluble bond.”[49] He also objected to the fanatics’ insistence that the Spirit of God works apart from the Word of God; this, for Calvin, amounted to despising Scripture.[50] Again, Calvin insisted that the Spirit and the Word are inseparably linked: “For by a kind of mutual bond the Lord has joined together the certainty of his Word and of his Spirit.”[51] Both Luther and Calvin insisted on the unity of the Word of God and the Spirit of God. The pneumatological attribute of the church emphasizes a balanced relationship between the Spirit of God and the Word of God; the church is the community of the Word and the Spirit of God.

AFFIRMING THE CHURCH AS DOXOLOGICAL, LOGOCENTRIC, AND PNEUMADYNAMIC

Affirming these three attributes—the church is doxological, logocentric, and pneumadynamic—has important ecclesial implications. First, the church must acknowledge that it is a contingent reality, dependent for its very existence on God. John Webster defends “the vital consideration that the church is not constituted by human intentions, activities and institutional or structural forms, but by the action of the triune God, realized in Son and Spirit.”[52] This should result in

a particular concern to emphasize the asymmetry of divine and human action: God’s work and the work of the church are fundamentally distinguished. But they are distinguished, not in order to bifurcate them . . . [but] in order to specify with the right kind of theological determinacy the respective characters of divine and human, churchly action. Divine action is sheerly creative, uncaused, spontaneous, saving and effectual; human, churchly action is derivative, contingent and indicative. All churchly action . . . is thus characterized by ‘creative passivity,’ an orientation towards that perfect work which has been done and continues to be done for the church and to the church. That orientation is, of course, what is meant by faith.[53]

For this reason, the Holy Spirit’s presence and empowerment is absolutely necessary for the church to be the church:

The phenomena of church life—words, rites, orders, history, and the rest—do not automatically, as it were ex opera operato, constitute the communion of saints; rather, the church becomes what it is as the Spirit animates the forms so that they indicate the presence of God. But if visible phenomena are not in and of themselves the final truth of the church, that is not because they are phenomena and therefore unspiritual, secular, pure nature. It is rather because of the kind of phenomena that they are: they are indications of the presence of the Spirit who bears Christ to the church and the world and so fulfills the Father’s purpose.[54]

The church’s constant and conscious reliance on the Holy Spirit expresses its “creative passivity” or stance of faith toward the absolutely essential work of God for its existence, growth, and mission.

A second implication of the doxological, logocentric, and pneumadynamic attributes of the church, and one that flows from the acknowledgment of the contingent nature of the church, is humility. As Jürgen Moltmann explains,

It is not the church that has a mission of salvation to fulfil to the world; it is the mission of the Son and the Spirit through the Father that includes the church, creating a church as it goes on its way. It is not the church that administers the Spirit as the Spirit of preaching, the Spirit of the sacraments, the Spirit of the ministry or the Spirit of tradition. The Spirit ‘administers’ the church with the events of word and faith, sacrament and grace, offices and traditions. If the church understands itself, with all its tasks and powers, in the Spirit and against the horizon of the Spirit’s history, then it also understands its particularity as one element in the power of the Spirit and has no need to maintain its special power and its special charges with absolute and self-destructive claims.[55]

The church’s acknowledgment of its contingent nature and its inculcation of the accompanying attitude of humility flow from its embrace of the three characteristics regarding its origin and orientation. Because its very existence is due to the triune God and his salvific work through Jesus Christ the Son and in the Holy Spirit, the church directs itself to the glory of God while focusing on the Word of God, always empowered by the Spirit of God. The church is doxological, logocentric, and pneumatological.

___________________

[1]For further discussion of these four attributes, see Edmund P. Clowney, The Church: Sacraments, Worship, Ministry, Mission, Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 71–98; Richard D. Philips; Philip Graham Ryken, and Mark E. Dever, The Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic (Phillipsburg, PA: P&R, 2004).

[2]Karl Barth, Evangelical Theology: An Introduction, trans. Grover Foley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), 45.

[3]A. M. Ramsey, The Gospel and the Catholic Church (London: Longmans, Green, 1936), 69. Jürgen Moltmann, addressing the developing expressions of Christology over time, applies this historical conditionality to ecclesiology: “Like them, the self-understanding of the church is also historically conditioned, varies from time to time and changes in substance. The image of Christ and the image of the church also always reflects ‘the spirit of the age’, the political and economic circumstances, and the cultural and social conditions, in which the churches are living” (Jürgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, trans. Margaret Kohl [New York: Harper & Row, 1977], 66). Thus, while I deeply appreciate the historical ways of delineating the attributes of the church, I am not bound to them in seeking to develop my ecclesiology for today.

[4]John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 4.1.9; cf. Thirty-nine Articles, 19.

[5]Belgic Confession of Faith, 29, in Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols. (New York: Harper, 1877–1905), 3:419; Scottish Confession of Faith, 18, in ibid., 3:461–462.

[6]Martin Luther, “On the Councils of the Church,” in Church and Ministry III, ed. Eric W. Gritsch, vol. 41 of Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), 149–164.

[7]I agree with John Hammett’s assessment of both the four traditional attributes of the church and the Reformation’s two/three marks of the true church: “both seem to be responsive to and shaped by the historical contexts in which they were formed. The creedal formulation of ‘one, holy, catholic, and apostolic’ helped the patristic church fathers respond to the challenges they faced from various heretical groups in their day, and the Reformation marks reflect the Reformers’ conviction that much of the Roman Catholic Church of their day had lost the gospel in their preaching and were practicing the sacraments in a way that obscured rather than portrayed the gospel. This responsiveness suggests that perhaps the development of marks of the church is an ongoing task as churches face new challenges” (John S. Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology [Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2005], 65).

[8]For further discussion, see G. R. Evans, The Church and the Churches: Toward an Ecumenical Ecclesiology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 27–42.

[9]Gary D. Badcock, The House Where God Lives: Renewing the Doctrine of the Church for Today (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 7.

[10]This point was a major emphasis of Jonathan Edwards, who grounded the doxological orientation of all things in the very nature of God himself (Jonathan Edwards, “A Dissertation concerning the End for Which God Created the World,” vol. 1 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005], 100, emphasis removed). By “end” Edwards meant the ultimate purpose for which God created.

[11]D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 196.

[12]Carson explains further, “There are not two separable characteristics of the worship that must be offered: it must be ‘in spirit and truth’, i.e., essentially God-centered, made possible by the gift of the Holy Spirit, and in personal knowledge of and conformity to God’s Word-made-flesh, the one who is God’s ‘truth’. . . . The worshippers whom God seeks worship him out of the fullness of the supernatural life they enjoy (‘in spirit’), and on the basis of God’s incarnate Self-Expression, Christ Jesus himself, through whom God’s person and will are finally and ultimately disclosed (‘in truth’); and these two characteristics form one matrix, indivisible” (ibid., 225–226).

[13]Paul’s use of the temple image in 1 Corinthians 6:19 refers to the individual Christian and hence is not relevant to our discussion of the church as the temple of God.

[14]Michael B. Thompson, “Romans 12:1–2 and Paul’s Vision for Worship,” in A Vision for the Church: Studies in Early Christian Ecclesiology in Honour of J. P. M. Sweet, ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Michael B. Thompson. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997), 128; cf. G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 252. Beale maintains that Paul’s use of “temple” goes beyond metaphor: “Paul believes not merely that the church is ‘like’ the temple but that it is the actual beginning fulfillment of the latter-day temple prophecies from the Old Testament” (ibid., 259–260). I am not convinced of this idea, but Beale’s point still stands if “temple” is simply a metaphor for the church.

[15]For a brief treatment of the danger of idolatrous worship, see Noel Due, Created for Worship: From Genesis to Revelation to You (Fearn, Ross-shire, UK: Mentor, 2005), 230–232.

[16]Raymond C. Ortlund Jr., Whoredom: God’s Unfaithful Wife in Biblical Theology, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Leicester, UK: Apollos, 1996), 148–149.

[17]Brent Curtis and John Eldredge, The Sacred Romance: Drawing Closer to the Heart of God (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997), 123–142.

[18]Ortlund, Whoredom, 149.

[19]Certainly, the manifestations of the church’s false gods may vary greatly in different contexts, as the idols of “the thought forms of the age” change. Today, these false gods include promotion of certain political views, nationalism, consumerism, societal approbation, “the emerging postmodern culture,” “the fear of obsolescence,” and the like. Paul’s warning to the church of Corinth stands as a constant reminder that, until the Lord returns, the church will be tempted to idolize someone or something other than the living God (Martin Downes, “Entrapment: The Emerging Church Conversation and the Cultural Captivity of the Gospel,” in Reforming or Conforming? Post-Conservative Evangelicals and the Emerging Church, ed. Gary L. W. Johnson and Ronald N. Gleason [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008], 224, 226, 229).

[20]Accordingly, though I agree with the basic sentiment of Timothy Stoner’s contention that the issue of whether two or more prophesies are communicated during a church service is a peripheral matter (especially when compared to essential doctrines like the deity of Christ and substitutionary atonement), I fear that he misses the point that a violation of this biblical instruction constitutes a heterodoxological element that ultimately detracts from true worship of God (which is no trifling matter) (Timothy J. Stoner, The God Who Smokes: Scandalous Meditations on Faith [Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2008], 51).

[21]I will have more to say about prophecy in my discussion of the ministries of the church.

[22]Though some commentators have followed Joachim Jeremias’s notion (“Der Eckstein,” Angelos 1 [1925]: 65–70) that what has been traditionally taken to refer to the cornerstone was in reality the capstone or topstone of a temple or some other structure, Harold Hoehner notes problems with this interpretation and offers good support for the traditional understanding of cornerstone as the bottom structure undergirding the rest of the edifice (Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002], 404–406).

[23]Moltmann, Church in the Power of the Spirit, 66.

[24]Gabriel Fackre, The Church: Signs of the Spirit and Signs of the Times, The Christian Story—A Pastoral Systematics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 17.

[25]Paul specifically mentions “all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named” (Eph. 1:21), expressions he repeats later in this letter (3:10; 6:12). The exact identity of these heavenly realities remains hard to discern, but they certainly include the angelic beings and powers operative in the world today and in the age to come. The phrase “every name that is named” would seem to include powerful human rulers as well (cf. Phil. 2:9–11).

[26]Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, PNTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 146.

[27]The interpretation of this phrase is intensely debated. On the one hand, the phrase is interpreted to refer not to the church but to Christ, who is the fullness of God (C. F. D. Moule, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968], 164–169). Hoehner demonstrates that the syntax of this interpretation makes it untenable (Hoehner, Ephesians, 290–304). On the other hand, the phrase is interpreted to refer to the church, with disagreement over whether “fullness” should be taken in an active or passive sense. In the former case, the church fills or completes Christ (J. Armitage Robinson, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, 2nd ed. [London: Macmillan, 1909], 43–44, 255–259). In the latter case, the church is filled by Christ, an idea expressed elsewhere in Ephesians 3:19; 4:13 (cf. Eph. 2:21–22; Col. 2:10) (Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, Word Biblical Commentary 42 [Dallas: Word, 1990], 76). Though Stott points out that the active sense of “fullness” is more common, Hoehner notes that in clear cases in the New Testament (e.g., Mark 6:43; 8:20; Eph. 3:19; 4:13; Col. 1:19; 2:9; Rom. 15:29; 11:25), “fullness” has the passive sense (John R. W. Stott, God’s New Society: The Message of Ephesians [Leicester, UK: Inter-Varsity, 1979], 62; Hoehner, Ephesians, 298–299). My interpretation takes “fullness” in the passive sense.

[28]O’Brien, Letter to the Ephesians, 151.

[29]Alan Hirsch, The Forgotten Way: Reactivating the Missional Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007), 41.

[30]Gregg R. Allison, “The Protestant Doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture: A Reformulation in Light of Biblical Teaching” (PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1995), 556–558.

[31]For a systematic theological development of the doctrine of Scripture and these various attributes, see Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000); for their historical development, see Gregg R. Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011).

[32]In this sense, then, the church is what the early creeds affirm of it: apostolic. The apostolicity of the church does not refer to apostolic succession in the Catholic sense. Such an understanding foists a human foundation on the church and subjects the canonicity, authority, and interpretation of Scripture to human judgment and pronouncement (see Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.7.1). The church, rather, was grounded on “the prophetic word” (2 Pet. 1:19), what Christians now call the Old Testament, which preceded the church in time and which provided for its wisdom resulting in “salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” and for “teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:15–16) before the New Testament existed. Accordingly, with the historical Protestant understanding, I affirm the logocentricity of the church—it is centered on the inspired Word of God—rather than the apostolicity of the church as Catholic theology articulates that attribute.

[33]P. T. Forsyth, The Church, the Gospel, and Society (London: Independent Press, 1962), 9 (emphasis removed).

[34]John Webster, Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Approach, Current Issues in Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 44. For an excellent discussion of the church as the creation of the Word, see Michael S. Horton, People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 37–51.

[35]Forsyth, Church, the Gospel, and Society, 115–116.

[36]Webster, Holy Scripture, 46; cf. Horton, People and Place, 72–98.

[37]As an outstanding example of a church that offered costly resistance against a worldly, political temptation to take captive and thus compromise the Word of God, we may consider the Confessing Church in Germany during Hitler’s reign and its principal document, the Barmen Declaration.

[38]The literature on this debate is fairly extensive; for a representative sample, see John Baillie, The Idea of Revelation in Recent Thought (New York: Columbia University Press, 1956); Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 216–221; Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 266–278.

[39]I am borrowing this word from John H. Coe, “Beyond Relationality to Union: Musing toward a Pneumadynamic Approach to Personality and Psychopathology,” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 18/2 (Summer 1999): 109–128. Coe intends by pneumadynamic “the dynamics between the human spirit and the Holy Spirit . . . and how these dynamics interface with our human relationships” (ibid., 110). Though my use is different from Coe’s, the word captures what I am trying to communicate. My thanks to Eric Johnson for directing me to this reference.

[40]That the church from early on acknowledged its pneumadynamic nature can be seen in the following conjunction in the Apostles’ Creed: “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church. . . . ”

[41]For an excellent treatment of the theology of the Holy Spirit, see another volume in this series, Graham Cole, He Who Gives Life: A Theology of the Holy Spirit, Foundations of Evangelical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007).

[42]Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, trans. Geoffrey Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 12–13.

[43]Horton, People and Place, 28.

[44]D. A. Carson, Love in Hard Places (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002), 61.

[45]John Webster, “On Evangelical Ecclesiology,” Ecclesiology 1/1 (2004): 26.

[46]Hippolytus, Apostolic Traditions, 35, in The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, Bishop and Martyr, ed. Gregory Dix (London: SPCK, 1968), 61–62.

[47]Martin Luther, “Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments,” in Church and Ministry II, ed. Eric W. Gritsch, vol. 40 of Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958), 83.

[48]Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. James I. Packer and O. R. Johnson (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1957), 73–74.

[49]Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.8.14; cf. 4.8.13.

[50]Ibid., 1.9.1.

[51]Ibid., 1.9.3.

[52]John Webster, “The Self-Organizing Power of the Gospel: Episcopacy and Community Formation,” in his Word and Church: Essays in Christian Dogmatics (Edinburgh and New York: T & T Clark, 2001), 195.

[53]Ibid., 196; cf. 201.

[54]Webster, “On Evangelical Ecclesiology,” 26–27.

[55]Moltmann, Church in the Power of the Spirit, 64–65.

CHAPTER

FOUR

CHARACTERISTICS REGARDING THE GATHERING AND SENDING OF THE CHURCH

INTRODUCTION

Continuing our core discussion of the ontology of the church and seeking to present a biblical vision for it, we find that the church is characterized by four attributes related to its gathering and sending. The sovereign headship that Jesus Christ exercises over and through his body, the church, possesses a covenant-relationship structure, demands a confession of faith/the faith, creates a sent people engaged in the mission of God, and providentially gathers Christ-followers in space and time as pilgrims in this world.

Specifically, the church is (4) covenantal, or gathered as members in (new) covenant relationship with God and in covenant relationship with each other; (5) confessional, or united by both personal confession of faith in Christ and common confession of the historic Christian faith; (6) missional, or identified as the body of divinely called and divinely sent ministers to proclaim the gospel and advance the kingdom of God; and (7) spatio-temporal/eschatological, or assembled as a historical reality (located in space and time) and possessing a certain hope and clear destiny while it lives the strangeness of ecclesial existence in the here-and-now.

THE CHURCH IS COVENANTAL

The church is covenantal, or gathered as members in (new) covenant relationship with God and in covenant relationship with each other. The first part of this discussion will briefly recall the above chapter on the church’s new covenant relationship with God. The second will discuss the covenantal relationship between the members of the church that is forged because of its new covenant relationship with God.

The Church in New Covenant Relationship with God through Christ

As discussed in detail in chapter 2, the church exists in a covenantal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. This new covenant is established by God and God alone with his covenant partners, or Christ-followers, who have heard the gospel of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, have repented of their sins, have embraced Jesus Christ by faith, have been baptized in the name of the triune God, have received forgiveness for their sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit, and have been incorporated into the church of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:22–47). By means of this covenant, God binds himself to his covenant partners, who in turn observe binding obligations toward him. To the church Christ has given two signs of this new covenant relationship: baptism, the sign of entrance into the new covenant relationship with God and into the covenant community, the church; and the Lord’s Supper, the sign of ongoing new covenant relationship with God and the covenant community, the church.

Church Members in Covenant Relationship with One Another

This covenantal characteristic goes beyond the gracious relationship of the church with its Lord by means of the new covenant. It also includes the covenantal relationship that is established between Christians in the church. As P. T. Forsyth urged, “the same act which sets us in Christ sets us also in the society of Christ. It does so ipso facto, and not by a mere consequence or sequel, more or less optional. To be in Christ is in the same act to be in the Church. . . . It puts us into a relation with all saints which we may neglect to our bane but which we cannot destroy.”[1]

Following the pattern of many churches, this covenantal relationship may be expressed by means of a church covenant, an agreement that binds those who affirm the covenant to life together in the church. By way of definition, “a church covenant is a series of written pledges based on the Bible which church members voluntarily make to God and to one another regarding their basic moral and spiritual commitments and the practice of their faith.”[2]

No biblical imperative or example can be marshaled in support of this community aspect of the covenantal nature of the church, though attempts to mount such a defense have been offered.[3] This lacuna should not be misunderstood, however, to mean there is no covenantal shape to the Christian community. Peter Gentry underscores “the covenantal framework intrinsic to the literary structure” of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (chs. 4–6). Specifically, Ephesians 4:17–5:14 “represents the instructions or stipulations of the new covenant in general for each individual member of the new humanity.”[4] This means that the commands of this section constitute key instructions for covenant members in their relationships with one another. In detail, the church should be characterized not by falsehood but by speaking truth (4:25), by (righteous) anger but not by sinful rage (vv. 26–27), not by stealing but by honest work (v. 28), not by corrupt words but by gracious conversation for edification (v. 29), not by mean-spiritedness but by kindness (vv. 31–32), and so forth. The so-called household code[5] that follows (Eph. 5:22–6:9; cf. Col. 3:18–4:1; Titus 2:1–10; 1 Pet. 2:13–3:7) further underscores the covenantal obligations church members owe to one another. Thus, the covenantal framework of the church that should regulate the relationships between its members is built into the fabric of the New Testament.

Appeals to ancient tradition in support of church covenants are not strong.[6] This absence should not be used, however, to minimize the importance of such church covenants. Beginning at the time of the Reformation, Anabaptist movements, followed by English Separatists, Baptists, and Congregationalists, regarded community covenants as very important. For example, the Schleitheim Confession (1527) dedicated two of its seven articles to commitments of Anabaptists to observe stringent community standards.[7] Furthermore, A True Confession, an early English Separatist agreement from 1596, affirmed that its members “are willing to join together in Christian communion and orderly covenant, and by confession of faith and obedience to Christ, to unite themselves into local congregations.”[8]

With the rise of Baptists in the early part of the seventeenth century, “covenant” was regularly delineated as an essential characteristic of the church. For example, John Smyth, writing in 1610/1611, defined the church in the following way: “A visible communion of saints is two, three, or more saints joined together by covenant with God and themselves, freely to use all the holy things of God, according to the Word, for their mutual edification and God’s glory.”[9] Following Smyth’s lead, the earliest Baptist confession of faith—the London Baptist Confession of 1644 (modified in 1646)—defined a local church as “a company of visible saints . . . joined to the Lord and each other by mutual agreement. . . . ”[10] Shortly thereafter, the Savoy Declaration (1658) of the Congregational churches echoed this theme in its direction to church members who “willingly consent to walk together according to the appointment of Christ, giving up themselves unto the Lord, and to one another by the will of God in professed subjection to the ordinances of the gospel.”[11]

An example of an early British Baptist covenant was that formulated by Benjamin Keach and his son Elias. The members of the church agreed to “solemnly join ourselves together in a holy union and fellowship, humbly submitting to the discipline of the gospel, and all holy duties required of a people in such a spiritual relation.” These “holy duties” were next listed as promises to (1) walk in a Christian manner; (2) avoid sinning against each other and admonish one another to exhibit love and engage in good deeds; (3) pray; (4) care for one another; (5) forbear with one another; (6) avoid divisions and work to maintain unity; (7) meet together on Sundays and other times if possible; and (8) support the pastor of the church.[12] Indeed, according to Deweese, most English Baptist covenants contained “at least four distinct categories: church fellowship, church discipline, public worship and personal devotion, and pastoral and lay care.”[13]

This practice of writing, affirming, and living by church covenants continued with Congregationalists and Baptists in America. For Congregationalists, the Cambridge Platform of 1648 underscored the importance of “a visible covenant . . . called the church covenant” for a church.[14]American Baptists similarly emphasized the covenantal nature of the church, as exemplified in the 1833 New Hampshire Baptist Confession of Faith’s article on the church: “Of a gospel church, we believe that a visible church of Christ is a congregation of baptized believers . . . associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel. . . . ”[15]

Why this sustained emphasis on church covenants among Anabaptists, English Separatists, Congregationalists, and early Baptists in both England and America? From a historical point of view, Deweese summarizes the benefits of church covenants: they create a sense of community among church members, express the assumption of equality and brotherhood among church members, provide a source of strength for the church, minimize the possibility of nominal church commitment, remind church members of their commitments to one another, contribute to the definition and understanding of what constitutes a church, state clearly the qualifications for church membership, and provide for acceptance and exercise of church discipline in the case of entrenched sin.[16] This covenantal aspect seems to be especially needed by and encouraged among churches that have broken away from a church-state structure or that develop in a geographical area that does not have a functioning church-state structure. In the absence of such a structure—in which the entire sociopolitical realm facilitates, even demands, obedience to church-instituted covenant standards, and shames, even penalizes, violations of those standards—church covenants play an important formative and disciplinary role. Thus, the fact that little evidence for church covenants is found in the medieval church and the churches of the magisterial Reformation should not be of great concern, nor does it undermine my emphasis on church covenants. Indeed, that such a practice arose with the Anabaptists, Separatists, and earliest Baptist churches—both in England and America—makes a great deal of sense.

Church covenants are not a thing confined to the past, however, and there appears to be a resurgence of interest in such covenants among some churches today.[17] Emphasizing that the church consists of people in covenant with God through Jesus, Stanley Grenz offers, “At the same time, their mutual confession of Jesus as the Christ means that the members are conscious of their special standing in fellowship with each other; their shared commitment to be disciples of the Lord entails a commitment to one another. The church-constituting covenant is a mutual agreement to walk together as the people of God.”[18]

The Church as Covenantal: Some Specifications

Talk of the church as covenantal may mislead some people, so I would like to offer a few specifications that will hopefully avoid possible misunderstandings of what I am advocating with this attribute.

First, to distinguish my emphasis on covenant from that of Presbyterian/Reformed covenantalism, I should refer to mine as “conversionistic covenantalism.”[19] By this I intend to indicate that the way one enters the new covenant is through conversion to Jesus Christ, attested to by baptism by immersion, and not by means of family or church associations. I will return to this discussion in the chapter on baptism.

Second, to distinguish my view from what I perceive to be an overemphasis on the voluntaristic notion of church association entrenched in some churches within the free church tradition, I insist that the covenant community comes about first and foremost according to the new covenant that God establishes with his people; that is, the church is “a communion of saints that is made such by the will of the Spirit of God.”[20] This new covenant relationship between God and Christ-followers is initial, prior to, foundational for, and generative of the covenantal relationship that exists between church members. In a secondary and derivative sense, Christ-followers make a willful choice by faith and in obedience to their Lord to covenant together as a voluntary organization. Jesus himself noted, “You did not choose me, but I chose you” (John 15:16). Accordingly, we must be careful to acknowledge the proper order: first, God’s choice (of us; unilateral election)[21] and covenant-making (with us; unilateral new covenant); then and second, our choice (of God through Christ, as made known through the gospel; 2 Thess. 2:13–14)[22] and covenant-making with members of Christ’s church.

Accordingly, becoming a member, joining with others in the voluntary society called the church, does not ultimately constitute the church. Rather, it joins that member to an already existing reality, or it defines the constituents of that particular entity that has already been constituted a church by the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, an emphasis on the voluntaristic idea of church may miss “the most important thing about the Church: the presence in it of the God who calls the members to himself, sustains them by his grace, and works through them as they carry out the mission of the Church.”[23] The results of missing this priority have been disastrous, creating what Horton calls a “contractual ecclesiology”: “In evangelical contexts, the church is often regarded chiefly as a resource for fellowship. For the uniquely individualized personal relationship with Jesus, the church is not only dispensable but perhaps also a hindrance to personal growth. . . . [A] voluntaristic emphasis emerges, with human decision as the contractual basis for both conversion and ecclesial existence.”[24] Such contractual ecclesiology is the opposite of what I (and Horton) am proposing: a covenantal ecclesiology. If the church seeks to move away from the rugged individualism whose effect is “to make every man’s hat his own church,”[25] then the priority of its new covenant relationship with God must take precedence over its emphasis on voluntarism.

This emphasis on the priority of the new covenant relationship between God and the church provides an important antidote to two problems frequently encountered in free church congregationalism. The first problem concerns the difficulty of understanding the church as a corporate entity rather than merely a collection of individuals. As Stanley Grenz presents the problem, “By asserting that the church is formed through the covenanting of its members, congregationalists reversed the order of priority. No longer did the corporate whole take precedence over the individual as in the medieval model. On the contrary, the congregationalists viewed the church as the product of the coming together of individual Christians rather than the individual Christian being the product of the church.” The second problem is the loss of any meaningful notion of a universal church. Again, Grenz explains this difficulty: “the move to covenant came to imply that the church exists only in local congregations. Where there is no covenanting community, there is no church. And the covenant is by its very nature local, being the agreement among a particular visible group of believers.”[26] The foundational importance I assign to the new covenant relationship between God and the church resolves these two problems by giving priority to the church over the aggregate of individual members and by restoring a meaningful notion of a universal church that is the covenant partner with God in this new covenant relationship.[27]

Third, this divine initiative and priority in covenant making must translate into a conception of the church as covenant community that is very different from all other notions of human communities that are not the church.[28] As John Webster notes, “The church is the presence in history of the new humanity which can never be just one more order of human society”; it is not, in the common notion, a “visible social entity.”[29] As Webster explains more fully by tying the church’s community to the electing work of God (noted in my second point above),

The concept of “church” is not deducible from or resolvable into the concept of “sociality” (even Christian sociality). Though the life of the saints necessarily is a social form, it is this only by God’s choice and calling. . . . Election generates a polity, a common life. Yet it is a common life of a distinctive kind, not just a modulation of sociality in general. It is the communion of saints, and so determined at every point of its life by the shock-waves which flow from God’s reconciling work. It is regenerate, eschatological communion, common life transfigured.”[30]

Thus, by means of both the work of God and the commitment of members to one another, the covenant community known as the church is unlike any other human organization or social grouping.

This discussion recalls Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Life Together, from which I draw the following applications to the uniqueness of the church as a covenantal community. One application is that “Christianity means community through Jesus Christ and in Jesus Christ. No Christian community is more or less than this. . . . What does this mean? It means, first, that a Christian needs others because of Jesus Christ. It means, second, that a Christian comes to others only through Jesus Christ. It means, third, that in Jesus Christ we have been chosen from eternity, accepted in time, and united for eternity.”[31] As D. A. Carson reminds us,

The church itself is not made up of natural “friends.” It is made up of natural enemies. What binds us together is not common education, common race, common income levels, common politics, common nationality, common accents, common jobs, or anything else of that sort. Christians come together, not because they form a natural collocation, but because they have all been saved by Jesus Christ and owe him a common allegiance. In the light of this common allegiance, in the light of the fact that they have all been loved by Jesus himself, they commit themselves to doing what he says—and he commands them to love one another. In this light, they are a band of natural enemies who love one another for Jesus’ sake.[32]

Thus, Jesus Christ is the central—better, sole—reason for Christian covenantal community. And this truth demands that the notion of the church as a voluntaristic society must be chastened, as Michael Jinkins underscores: “This description of the church stands in profound contrast to the biblical description of the church. The New Testament does not describe a church as a voluntary society. It certainly does not assume the kind of ‘like-mindedness’ necessary for the banding together of a voluntary society. Instead, in the New Testament, one finds very contrary people summoned together by the Word who overrides, but ultimately does not minimize, their differences.”[33]

A second application of Bonhoeffer’s Life Together to the church as a covenant community is the responsibility to be thankful recipients of Christian fellowship:

If . . . we only keep complaining to God that everything is so paltry and petty, so far from what we expected, then we hinder God from letting our fellowship grow. . . . A pastor should not complain about his congregation, certainly never to other people, but also not to God. A congregation has not been entrusted to him in order that he should become its accuser before God and men. . . . He had better examine himself first to see whether the trouble is not due to his wish dream that should be shattered by God; and if this be the case, let him thank God for leading him into his predicament. . . . What may appear weak and trifling to us may be great and glorious to God.[34]

Such a communion entails church members forgiving one another; bearing with one another’s faults, weaknesses, and failings; and even confessing sins to one another. Intriguingly, such confession—needed when community breaks down—shores up community:

In confession the break-through to community takes place. Sin demands to have a man by himself. It withdraws him from the community. The more isolated a person is, the more destructive will be the power of sin over him, and the more deeply he becomes involved in it, the more disastrous is his isolation. . . . In confession the light of the Gospel breaks into the darkness and seclusion of the heart. The expressed, acknowledged sin has lost all its power. . . . He is no longer alone with his evil for he has cast off his sin in confession.[35]

Such life together, as it becomes characteristic of the church as a covenant community, will certainly reflect the fact that the church is not just another social organization.

In summary, the church is covenantal, or gathered as members in (new) covenant relationship with God and in covenant relationship with each other.

THE CHURCH IS CONFESSIONAL

The church is confessional, or united by both personal confession of faith in Christ and common confession of the historic Christian faith. “Christians confess their faith both before God and before their fellow human beings. The motive and purpose of their confessions is both doxology and witness.”[36] The first part of this discussion will focus on the confession of the saving lordship of Jesus Christ that is incumbent on all Christ-followers who join themselves to a church. The second will discuss the common confession of the historic Christian faith that is made corporately by the members of the church. Faith in the first sense refers to the act of faith (fides quâ creditur), whereas faith in the second sense refers to the substance of faith (fides quae creditur).

Personal Confession of Faith in the Saving Lordship of Jesus Christ

Personal confession of faith in Jesus Christ as a requisite element of salvation and, correlatively, church association has the strong support of Scripture, the early church, the Anabaptist wing of the Reformation, and Baptist history. As for biblical support, appeal can be made to Paul’s discussion of justification by faith. Contextualizing the words of Moses regarding the Deuteronomic covenant (the second giving of the old covenant; Deut. 30:11–14) for his Roman Christian audience, Paul comments that the word of justification by faith about which “Moses writes” (Rom. 10:5–7) now corresponds to “the word of faith that we proclaim” (v. 8)—the gospel about Jesus Christ. How is it that Paul can tell his hearers that this gospel “is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (Rom. 10:8; par. Deut. 30:14)? His reply is straightforward: “because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved” (Rom. 10:9–10). Embracing the gospel so as to be saved entails personal confession of the lordship of Jesus and faith in Christ’s resurrection from the dead. Specifically, this confession is verbal—“with [one’s] mouth”—and it is the desired response to the gospel (vv. 14–17).

Furthermore, according to Scripture, a key visible expression of this confession of the saving lordship of Jesus Christ is baptism. On the day of Pentecost, after preaching the gospel, the apostle Peter directed his audience to its proper response: “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). In his first letter, Peter addresses baptism “not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience” (1 Pet. 3:21); here, too, baptism is linked with a human response to God. Examples of baptism pepper the pages of the New Testament, and this rite is a key visible confession flowing from hearing the gospel, repentance from sin, belief in Jesus Christ, being forgiven of sins, and the reception of the Holy Spirit.

The early church cemented this association of baptism with a confession of the Christian faith, as Tertullian explained: “When entering the water, we make profession of the Christian faith in the words of its rule. We then bear public testimony that we have renounced the devil, his pomp, and his angels.”[37] In some early baptismal ceremonies, the candidates were questioned about the faith as part of the act of baptism itself.[38] Thus, baptism became closely associated with the public confession of the Christian faith by those entering into the church.

As the church expanded and Western civilization became almost identified with Christianity, the baptism of people coming to faith in Jesus Christ and making confession of the Christian faith upon entrance into the church gave way to the nearly exclusive practice of infant baptism. Though this practice would continue almost unchecked for more than a thousand years, Anabaptist movements in the sixteenth century and Baptist churches in the seventeenth century returned to the practice of the early church of baptizing only those people who could make a personal profession of faith in Christ.[39] I will have more to say about this in the chapter on baptism.

To underscore this first aspect of the confessional nature of the church, a confession of the saving lordship of Jesus Christ is incumbent on all Christ-followers who join themselves to a church. Such a confession of personal commitment to Christ is associated with hearing the gospel, repentance from sin, faith in Christ, being forgiven of sins, reception of the Holy Spirit, and baptism as a public testimony of this confession.

A Common, Corporate Confession of the Church’s Faith

In addition to this personal confession of faith in the saving lordship of Jesus Christ, the church as a corporate assembly makes a common confession of the Christian faith. This practice has good support from Scripture and very strong historical support that begins with the early church and continues through today as part of the liturgy of many churches.

In terms of the support of Scripture, biblical scholars acknowledge for the most part that in the pages of the New Testament, splices of early church confessions are to be found. One example is in Paul’s first letter to Timothy. After employing the metaphor that the church is a “pillar and buttress of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15), Paul concludes with a profession of that truth:

Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:

“He was manifested in the flesh,

vindicated by the Spirit,

seen by angels,

proclaimed among the nations,

believed on in the world,

taken up in glory.” (1 Tim. 3:16)

Most biblical scholars believe that this short, six-line formulaic composition is a citation by Paul of (part of) an actual confession of faith recited by some in the early church. The word confessed is none other than the Word himself; the weighty (“great indeed”) confession traces the career and benefits of Jesus Christ: the incarnation of the preexistent Word of God, the resurrection of the humiliated and crucified Savior of humanity, the display of victory of the Lord of glory before the angelic realm, the missional proclamation of the gospel to all people, the whole-world response of the followers of Christ, and the ascension of the exalted God-man to the right hand of the divine majesty in anticipation of his triumphant return at the end of this present age. Such an affirmation, when confessed by the church, constitutes an early example of what I am advocating with this common confessional element of the church. Other possible examples include the theological articulation of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff., the creation affirmation in 1 Corinthians 8:6, the Christological paean embedded in Paul’s exhortation in Philippians 2:5–11, and the Christological hymn of Christ’s work of creation and redemption in Colossians 1:15–20.[40]

Beyond these actual examples, the New Testament also demands that the church “speak” or “confess” the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). In its context, this truth confessing must be seen as the antidote to heretical teaching (condemned, implicitly, in v. 14: “so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes”). Corporate confession of sound doctrine can help ward off heresy. Moreover, such confession enables the church to “attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (v. 13) so as “to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (v. 15).

When we go outside of the New Testament and look at the practice of the early church, we find several examples of confessions of faith. Called the rule of faith or the canon of truth, these confessions were summaries of the growing doctrinal understanding of the early church.[41] As heresies advanced and challenged orthodox doctrine, general church councils were convened; a particular result of some of these ecumenical councils was a creed, or written confession of faith, such as the Nicene-Constantinople Creed (381).[42] Historically, as part of the liturgy, Christ-followers have continued (and continue today) to express together this confession (or some other form) of the Christian faith when gathered as the church. Indeed, as P. T. Forsyth underscored, “A Church is made by what it believes.”[43]

A Proposal

Some people would maintain that such a formal confession goes too far and should not be incorporated into the church today. Specific issues raised include concern that repetition of the confession can devolve into meaningless ritual, and fear that demanding such a confession may become off-putting and inhibiting because it is too formal or structured. Moreover, within free church traditions, the rallying cry “no creed but the Bible” is targeted at rejecting humanly developed accretions to the sufficient Word of God.[44] I am very aware of these concerns. I use these examples—the rule of faith, the canon of truth, the Nicene-Constantinople Creed—not to insist on a specific confession, or even on a particular confessional format or style. At the same time, I believe that Alan Hirsch oversimplifies the idea:

At the center and circumference of every significant Jesus movement there exists a very simple confession. Simple, but one that fully vibrates with the primal energies of the scriptural faith, namely, that of the claim of the One God over every aspect of every life, and the response of his people to that claim (Deut. 6:4–6ff). The way that this was expressed in the New Testament and later movements was simply “Jesus is Lord!” With this simple confession they changed the world.[45]

Certainly, “Jesus is Lord!” is a necessary confession for Christ-followers; as we have seen, apart from such a confession, a person cannot be saved (Rom. 10:9). But it is not a sufficient confession; given two thousand years of historical development, the church’s confession must be much more robust. And such a confession must never be allowed to regress to mere rote repetition or to lose significance because of formality.

What I am not advocating is a particular creed or a particular confessional format or style. Nor am I encouraging a type of Christian mantra that is repeated without consideration for what is being confessed. And I am not supporting the recitation of a creed at a particular place in the church liturgy.[46] What I am advocating is a regular and thoughtful corporate confession of the Christian faith—whether that is a traditional creed, a denominational confession of faith, a statement of faith as developed by a local church, or some other concrete manifestation of the commonly held belief—in ways that retain vitality in the public act.[47]

Such a regular and thoughtful corporate confession by the church is important for several reasons. For most of its existence, the church has identified itself as a confessional community. Indeed, from the time of its initial formulations of Christian doctrine—the rule of faith, the canon of truth, the early creeds—to its current practice of recitation of confessional formulas, the church has considered this element to be a normative part of being the church.[48] If there is to be any substantive continuity between today’s churches and those from past centuries, it seems that this element must be recovered in those churches that have drifted away from it or even repudiated it.[49] Such confessions of the faith serve “to maintain coherence, integrity, and, in effect, Christian identity.”[50] Thomas Oden urges such a recovery in order to experience “the joy and power of confessing the faith with the whole intergenerational church over all times and places.”[51] To voice a common confession of faith as the church assembles together and in continuity with the church throughout the ages stimulates and demonstrates the unity of the body of Christ.

Corporate confession of the faith by the church is also beneficial for providing personal assurance that the faith that its members confess is indeed the true Christian faith. We are all aware of genuine Christians who are plagued by doubts about their salvation. While many factors may contribute to this lack of subjective assurance, one that is often overlooked is doubt about the actual content of belief. This unsettledness may manifest itself in questions like, “Is what I believe true?” or, “Is this anything more than a mere parochial and existential commitment?” Appropriately, Pannenberg calls attention to the important role of the church’s confession of faith:

Undoubtedly within the context of the life of the Christian church religious socializing and communication help to give the assurance required, but it comes definitely only by way of the common confession of faith. The confession is primarily an act of individuals by which each and all believers publicly intimate their faith. But since confession is public, a basis exists for the possibility of common confession that involves agreement with the confession of others. Assurance as to the common nature of faith reaches its goal with such common confession.[52]

Accordingly, corporate confession of the faith encourages assurance of its truthfulness.

A confession of faith also contributes to the cohesiveness of the members of a church. Though the following citation of James Olthuis describes the importance of a shared worldview for both individuals and their communities, it can be transposed so as to address the importance of a common confession of faith for both members and their church:

Although a vision of life is held only by individuals, it is communal in scope and structure. Since a worldview gives the terms of reference by which the world and our place in it can be structured and illumined, a worldview binds its adherents together in community. Allegiance to a common vision promotes the integration of individuals into a group. At times communality of vision not only binds people together, but also, ironically, provides them with the tools and vocabulary to advance with greater sophistication their internal differences.[53]

If Olthuis is correct, a possible reason for the weakened bonds between church members is the absence of a common confession of faith binding the community together. Moreover, if he is correct, a possible contributor to the splintering of churches is the lack of a church confession providing the framework for working out their internal problems. One way that a confession could operate in this way is to call the attention of church members to the essentials of the faith that powerfully unite them; put into perspective, then, all other matters are secondary or tertiary and pale in comparison with that which binds the church together.

Corporate confession also fosters a deepening of trust in the faith and personal commitment to it, because of “the self-involving nature of confession.”[54] As Thiselton explains, “Confessions declare a content, but they also serve to nail the speaker’s colors to the mast as an act of first-person testimony and commitment.”[55] Accordingly, personal faith is deepened; Christ-followers develop a disposition of belief. When challenged, a disposition of belief responds with a firm and settled conviction that expresses itself appropriately: “We may best understand believing as a disposition to respond to situations both by expressing and by ‘standing behind’ belief-utterances in situations that challenge belief; or that demand action appropriate to belief.”[56] Community confession of the faith, then, provides an important training ground for dispositional belief.

As noted above, this confessional characteristic may also serve to ward off the always-present threat of heresy creeping into and destroying the church. Certainly, this proposal is no guarantee of safety; one can readily point to churches that liturgically repeat historic Christian creeds yet have drifted away doctrinally so as to become false churches.[57] While not a panacea that guarantees doctrinal faithfulness, the corporate confession of the faith can stand against a fall into heresy, a slide that is tragically facilitated by the loss of historic consciousness in many churches and denominations. Speaking of Christ-followers united together “to profess their faith and . . . give substance to its stated and visible life among men,” Martin Marty emphasizes that “the confessing group and its symbols serve to call believers out of isolation and anarchy into the beginnings of coherence and shared life. A confession serves to define and thus to delimit the boundaries of belief and shared life.”[58] This “boundaried” element means that an explicit confession of the common faith entails an implicit rejection of whatever constitutes “anti-faith”; “this requires that one stand necessarily against whatever is opposed to this standing within [the community of faith]. There is no confession without some presupposed understanding of the truth, and hence disavowal of contrary untruth.”[59]

Finally, confession of the common faith provides a hermeneutical framework for the church and its members. As “a résumé of the Christian faith,” creeds and confessions “have provided a hermeneutical grid through which the believer could interpret both the ampler witness of scripture and the Church and also his own religious stance.”[60] In an increasingly biblically illiterate ecclesial situation, provision of guidelines for reading and interpreting Scripture is sorely needed, and a common, corporate confession of the faith fosters such a framework.

In summary, its confessional characteristic means that the church is united by both personal confession of faith in Christ and common confession of the historic Christian faith.

THE CHURCH IS MISSIONAL

The church is missional. It is the body of divinely called and divinely sent ministers proclaiming the gospel and advancing the kingdom of God.[61] Key to understanding and embracing this attribute is the post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to his disciples recounted in the Gospel of John: “Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld’” (John 20:21–23). After demonstrating to his fearful followers that it was genuinely he, the once-crucified-yet-now-resurrected Lord, Jesus commissioned his disciples with the same commission with which he had been commissioned by the Father. Now, what is this commission?

That the Father sent the Son has been thematized earlier in John’s Gospel. The Father sent the Son not to condemn, but to save, the world (John 3:17); this sending means that the initiative lies with the Father rather than with the Son (8:42). Jesus’ works bear witness to the fact that the Father sent him (5:36), as does the witness of the Father himself (5:37). People should believe the one whom the Father sent (5:38; 6:29; 11:42; 17:8, 21, 23, 25); indeed, eternal life consists of knowing God and Jesus Christ whom he sent (17:3). To this sending by his Father, the Son obeys and responds with imitation: “The Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise” (5:19). Specifically, this means “as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will” (5:21). Indeed, the Father has given people to the Son, and to them he gives eternal life (10:28–29; 17:2). On the reverse side, judgment is also delegated by the Father to the Son (5:22, 27). Thus, at the resurrection, everyone will hear the voice of the Son “and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment” (5:29). This sending and going, commanding and obeying, function “that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him” (5:23). This is the missio Dei—the mission of God—on which the Son was sent by the Father and which was accomplished by the Son through obedience to the will of the Father (4:34; 5:30; 6:38; 8:29), so that the world would be saved through him.

As the Son was commissioned by the Father with this mission, so the Son commissions his disciples with that mission (John 20:21; cf. 17:18). The conjunction of Jesus breathing the Spirit—“He breathed and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’”[62] (20:22)—and the specific words of his commission—“If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld” (20:23)—is key: readers of John’s Gospel, as well as the early Christians in general, would have recalled the sending of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost for the empowerment of the disciples to be his “witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Accordingly, “Jesus’ ‘exhalation’ and command Receive the Holy Spirit are best understood as a kind of enacted parable pointing forward to the full endowment still to come.”[63] It forecasts the outpouring of the Holy Spirit to launch the church’s mission.[64]

According to John’s Gospel, this sending of the Holy Spirit for the purpose of bearing witness to Jesus had been promised by Jesus himself (John 15:26–27). In Luke’s writings, Jesus instructs his disciples “that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you” (Luke 24:47–49; reissued in Acts 1:4). The fulfillment of this promised baptism or filling with the Holy Spirit—“you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts 1:5)—occurred a mere ten days later: “When the day of Pentecost arrived. . . . they were all filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:1, 4). As a harbinger of this monumental event, Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit and spoke of forgiveness extended and withheld. This event symbolized the enabling power of the Spirit that was soon to be granted to Jesus’ disciples while spelling out the commission that was his and would be theirs as well. What he had been sent to accomplish—saving rather than condemning the world, giving eternal life, executing judgment, raising some to the resurrection of life and others to the resurrection of judgment—is summed up in the words of forgiveness extended and withheld. And the disciples are the witnesses who will either extend or withhold forgiveness, based on the response to their witness: “There is no doubt from the context that the reference is to forgiving sins, or withholding forgiveness. But though this sounds stern and harsh, it is simply the result of the preaching of the gospel, which either brings men to repent as they hear of the ready and costly forgiveness of God, or leaves them unresponsive to the offer of forgiveness which is the gospel, and so they are left in their sins.”[65] This division-based-on-response would be at the heart of the Christ-directed and Spirit-empowered mission of the disciples, as it was at the heart of their Lord’s mission. The salvation that the Son accomplished as his mission would be announced by the disciples as their mission.

Other biblical passages emphasize this missional characteristic of the church: Jesus’ “Great Commission” (Matt. 28:18–20); Paul’s commendation of preaching the good news (Rom. 10:14–17) and his ambassadorial charge (2 Cor. 5:18–21); Luke’s portrayal of the rapid expansion of the church (see discussion below); and the like.

Two closely related biblical metaphors portray this missional characteristic of the church. Jesus challenged his disciples with an observation: “No one after lighting a lamp covers it with a jar or puts it under a bed, but puts it on a stand so that those who enter may see the light” (Luke 8:16). Making a personal application, Jesus warned that if anyone does not shine responsibly as a light, “even what he thinks that he has will be taken away” (Luke 8:18). This metaphor of a lit lamp, applicable to individual Christ-followers, is transposed into a corporate key in the book of Revelation. The apostle John envisions Jesus in the midst of seven golden lampstands (Rev. 1:12). As a metaphor for the churches addressed in the following chapters, these lampstands symbolize the responsibility to shine as witnesses. Indeed, the instruction and warning addressed to the church of Ephesus because of the loss of its first love—“Repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent” (Rev. 2:5–6)—may emphasize that the Ephesian Christians “no longer expressed their former zealous love for Jesus by witnessing to him in the world.”[66] The metaphors of lamp and lampstands portray the missional nature of the church.

This missional nature expresses itself in three ways: the church is expansive, contextually sensitive, and (potentially) catholic or universal. The expansion of the missional church is vividly portrayed in narrative form in the book of Acts. From the outset, upon hearing Peter’s preaching of the gospel on the day of Pentecost, “those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:41). The church spread out, moving from Jerusalem, into Judea and Samaria, and to end of the earth (cf. Acts 1:8). Building a breathtaking momentum, Luke punctuates his narrative with this or a similar expression: “And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47; 5:14; 6:7; 9:31, 42; 11:24; 12:24; 13:49; 16:5; 19:26; 28:30–31).[67] The “unfinished” ending of the book of Acts itself propels all churches—including the contemporary church—toward finishing “the Acts of the Apostles” through expansive efforts: “the summary of Paul’s unhindered yet imprisoned missionary activity in Rome (Acts 28:30–31) . . . provides readers with the mandate to see their own potentially unstoppable mission as the resolution of the incomplete mission of Paul to Gentiles.”[68] This expansion of the missional church extends to church planting endeavors around the globe today.

The missional church’s sensitivity to contextualization is also rendered narratively in the book of Acts. One need only compare three Lucan narratives to gain a strong sense of this emphasis: (1) Peter’s proclamation to his largely Jewish audience on the day of Pentecost—a message that is replete with Old Testament quotations (Acts 2:14–41); (2) Paul’s simple words to the unsophisticated peasants of Lystra to dissuade them from offering sacrifices to Barnabas and himself (14:8–18); and (3) Paul’s address to the philosophically sophisticated Athenians at the Areopagus—a message that only alludes to Old Testament truths (e.g., God is not and cannot be confined to humanly constructed temples; the whole human race traces its ancestry to Adam) while quoting from Epimenides of Crete and Aratus’s poem Pheinomena (17:16–34). This comparison enables us to observe the contextualization of the gospel by the church as it moved into different arenas of ministry. “The reality is that in seeking to faithfully pursue mission, all churches face the same challenge of relating their confession of Christ in the gospel to the culture that they are seeking to reach.”[69] Appropriately, “The evangelical church needs to maintain a missional ecclesiology with its commitment to mission, and concomitant flexibility while also remaining faithful to our commission. The best way to describe this and equip ourselves for faithful flexibility is to add to our missional ecclesiology an improvisational dimension. When evangelical ecclesiology is improvisational it enables the church to fulfill its mission in changing circumstances.”[70]

Not that such improvisation is easy, and certainly the path to proper contextualization is fraught with pitfalls in terms of both undercontextualization and overcontextualization.[71] Undercontextualization, or ethnocentric extractionism, is evidenced by “excessive separation from one’s cultural context.”[72] This extreme is illustrated by North American missionaries who attempt to start a church among a heretofore unreached people group in Asia while living in self-imposed isolation in a missionary compound, failing to learn adequately the language of the people group, conducting church services in English, building a replica of their American church sanctuary, and the like. The opposite extreme is overcontextualization, or syncretism, the substitution or dilution of biblical truth and practice by means of the incorporation of unbiblical accretions. An example of this extreme is Christian converts from Islam who continue to identify themselves as Muslims, engage in Islamic worship and religious duties, never or only irregularly meet together as Christ-followers, and rarely communicate the gospel to other Muslims.[73] Certainly, dangers abound with contextualization. But for many reasons, contextualization of the missional church is necessary.[74]

Moreover, the missional church is (potentially) catholic or universal.[75] Certainly, the divine goal for the church in terms of extension is that one day it will exist among all people groups throughout the entire world. To state the obvious, Jesus’ Great Commission was “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:18), and his promise of empowerment by the Holy Spirit was so that his disciples would be his “witnesses . . . to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). This is the goal of the church in terms of its extension: complete universality.[76] As Moltmann notes, this universality flows from the lordship of Christ: “The catholicity of the church is not initially her spatial extent or the fact that she is in principle open to the world; it is the limitless lordship of Christ, to whom ‘all authority is given in heaven and on earth.’ Where, and so far as, Christ rules, there, consequently, the church is to be found. She acquires her openness to the world in the breadth of his rule.”[77] Accordingly, G. C. Berkouwer emphasizes that the Great Commission “is not to be understood as an accidental commission, a command that could not be expected from the reality of the Church.”[78]

Furthermore, the church’s potential for universality derives from the perspective of one of the purposes of the atonement: Jesus Christ “is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2; cf. 2 Cor. 5:17–21).[79] As his “lifting up” (on the cross) was a death for all people (John 12:32), Jesus Christ is exalted “so that he should receive the worship of all as universal Lord [Phil. 2:5–11]. If these are the christological and soteriological claims made by Christians, the implied vocation of the Church is to catholicity. The ultimate scope of the Church cannot properly be less than universal.”[80] Thus, the church indiscriminately preaches the gospel and, when people respond to its message, expands into all lands.[81] Appropriately, a song of worship in heaven redounds to the glory of the bloodied Lamb of God: “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth” (Rev. 5:9–10). As the Son of God works to bring this vision of catholicity into reality, so the church seeks to enter into every corner of the humanly populated earth.[82]

How does the missional identity of the church differ from what the church has practiced, more or less, from its inception in terms of evangelism, sending and supporting missionaries, and other types of missionary endeavors?[83] Three key differences are to be noted. First, Moltmann emphasizes the importance of understanding “not that the church ‘has’ a mission, but the very reverse: that the mission of Christ creates its own church. Mission does not come from the church; it is from mission and in light of mission that the church has to be understood.”[84] This notion contrasts with missions being seen more as an activity of the church rather than in terms of the church’s essential image of itself. Missional is a matter of identity first, then function: “a missional ecclesiology stresses that the church’s very existence has been sent into the world. . . . [T]he fundamental point is that missions is not peripheral or additional for the church. The fact that it has been sent is of its essential nature, so much so that the sending is implicitly and explicitly formative in all aspects of its life—its worship, its koinonia, its engagements, its witness, its birthing of new communities, its sociopolitical engagements, its compassion and mercy.”[85] Furthermore, this emphasis underscores that the missional task of the church has been given to it; it is a divinely given mandate, not a responsibility the church takes to itself.[86]

Second, being missional is a matter of corporate identity first, then individual engagement. Representing a growing concern among evangelicals, Hunsberger is critical of evangelicalism’s tendency to elevate the individual Christian over the community/church, with the following negative result:

If, for evangelicalism, Christian faith and identity are first personal and individual, its sense of missions tends to be the same. The responsibility to give witness to Christ is one each person bears. The accent rests on personal evangelism, therefore. Any sense of a church’s mission grows from this ground. It is the aggregate of the individual callings to be witnesses. Identity and missions are first and foremost individual matters. Missions is not conceived to be first of all the “mission of the church,” to which every member is joined. First it is the mission of the Christian, which in the church becomes a collective responsibility.[87]

Accordingly, missions is commonly relegated to the domain and responsibility of the Christians—or, in many cases, committees—in the church, which itself is “mildly irrelevant” to the whole matter; thus, “missions in the end does not belong to the church.”[88] This entrenched trend must be reversed, and an emphasis on the missional identity of the church helps in this regard.

Third, missional signifies that the church is to recognize its responsibility to be a countercultural reality in the midst of and as a challenge to its own context. Hunsberger appropriately calls for “a theocentric vision of the missio Dei, within which the church is understood to be the called and sent people of God” and explains what this should imply: “the church makes it a missional priority to be a distinctly Christian community in contrast to the perceptions and practices of its surrounding society; the church is continuously shaped by the gospel to be a demonstration of its claims, promises, and invitations; and the church relates itself to its surrounding world, near and far, as a community of the coming reign of God.”[89] Concretely, for Hunsberger, this means the following: “No more is the church the chaplain to an assumed Christian society, nor the moral glue that holds things together, nor the guardian of civility and duty.”[90] Rather, the church is the missional body commissioned by its head, Jesus Christ, with the same commission with which he was commissioned by the Father. The missional church is identified by and engages in the missio Dei.

THE CHURCH IS SPATIO-TEMPORAL/ESCHATOLOGICAL

The church is spatio-temporal/eschatological, or assembled as a historical reality (located in space and time) and possessing a certain hope and clear destiny while it lives the strangeness of ecclesial existence in the here-and-now. It has physical dimensions, location requirements, a temporal existence in terms of both a past heritage and (the Lord willing) a future, and an ultimate end.[91]

What prompted me to affirm this attribute was the rather innocuous observation that when the word “church” is mentioned, what comes to mind for many people (at least in America) is a building: the “church” is the red-bricked, white-columned, colonial-styled edifice three blocks down from one’s suburban home. When combined with another observation, that the term ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia) is never used in the Greek New Testament to refer to a building (not surprisingly, because the early followers of Jesus did not meet together in buildings that served solely for Christian assemblies), these two facts produced in me a good deal of dissonance. This dissatisfaction gave way to capitulation; at a certain point, I decided to surrender and accept the fact that a bona fide notion of the English word “church” is the building in which a “church” (i.e., a gathering of Christ-followers) meets. I also recalled the hand game learned soon after I had achieved a certain degree of manual dexterity: “Here is the church, here is the steeple, open the doors and see all the people.” Desiring a bit more theological grounding for my idea of the physicality of the church, I was rescued by George Hunsberger’s contention that a legacy of the Reformation is the Protestant concept of the church as the “place where certain things happen.”[92] Dietrich Bonhoeffer added further support: “The Body of Christ takes up physical space here on earth.”[93]

Moreover, Scripture indicates that specific churches were established in specific places with concrete addresses. For example, Paul wrote “to the church in God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:2); similarly, he wrote “to the churches of Galatia” (Gal. 1:2). “God called the churches there for his purposes—and the there was not inconsequential, seeing God’s providential ordering of peoples, times, and places (Acts 17:26).”[94] Indeed, by far the most common referent of the New Testament’s presentation of the church is a spatio-temporal gathering of Christ-followers (as discussed in chapter 2)—a local church.

I am certainly not saying that the particular location of the church is an essential matter. Clearly, Jesus himself addressed this wrong notion in his conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:1–42). Whereas the Samaritans contended that Mount Gerizim was the proper place to worship and the Jews maintained that (the temple in) Jerusalem was the rightful location (v. 20), Jesus focused attention on the qualifications for genuine worship: “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. . . . the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him” (v. 23). So the issue is about the identity of worshipers, not the location of worship. But Jesus does not mean that genuine worshipers engage in genuine worship nowhere. It does not have to be on Mount Gerizim, nor does it have to take place in (the temple of) Jerusalem, but worship must take place somewhere: “the church is not geographically bound to one place . . . but it is not geographically agnostic, in that it lives, moves, and has its being in some spatiotemporal reality. It can be anywhere, but always is ‘somewherealso.’”[95] Conversely, the church “does not occur in ‘no-space’. . . . It is what men and women do because of the gospel.”[96]

I am also not saying that a building is an essential matter for the church, particularly a building owned by the church. Clearly, the early church met together in the temple (possibly Solomon’s Portico; Acts 2:46; 3:11), houses (Acts 2:46; 1 Cor. 16:19), a hall (Acts 19:9), a meeting room (Acts 20:8), and other places. Throughout its history, the church has met together in catacombs, graveyards, farmhouses, caves, palaces, storefronts, apartments, huts, schools, and many other places. A church building, reserved or usually used for the assembly of Christ-followers, is not necessary. But when there is a church building, the spatio-temporal characteristic of the church prompts theological reflection on its design, structure, aesthetics, upkeep, and the like.[97]

Specifically, a church that owns or at least meets in a building must give careful consideration to the following question: does the physical space—the building—advance or obstruct what the church is seeking to be and do? Specifically, does the space in which the members gather together for the weekly service(s) enhance or hinder the worship of God?[98] Does the space in which the educational programs are conducted contribute to or detract from learning and life transformation?[99] Does the space in which the congregants come together stimulate or encumber genuine fellowship?[100] My point is this: if a church owns or at least meets in a building, it needs to acknowledge that the structure’s physical dimensions—its spatial contours—influence its people as they engage in worship, learning, communicating, and so forth. The church’s space will either promote or hamper what the church undertakes to accomplish.[101]

An investment must be made in the church’s building, and my purpose is to encourage theological reflection regarding this investment in its location requirements. Certainly, the budget of a church reflects its many priorities: pastoral and staff salaries and benefits, resources for its many ministries, support for missionaries and missions, administrative costs, care for the poor, and other matters. Building expenses must also be included in the budget. Of course, upkeep of the physical plant and other maintenance issues must be routinely addressed. In addition, what I am advocating is, reasonable and appropriate expenditures for new construction and renovations that will enhance what the church is seeking to be and do. Lest we mistakenly think that this discussion of the church’s physicality is both unspiritual and a waste of time (not to mention that my call for expenditures to be made for “brick and mortar” is a misuse of church funds and a waste of money), we need to acknowledge that Gnostically derived philosophy—whatever is “spiritual” is inherently good, while whatever is “material” is inherently evil—has corrupted the church’s perspective on all things physical. But the created order, human embodiment, the incarnation of the Son of God, the future resurrection, and the church’s spatio-temporal gathering in a physical environment are all divinely designed. We may complain about and object to spending money on the church’s physical space, or we may welcome such expenditure as part of God’s will for the church and seek to make it redound to the glory of God and the advancement of the church’s identity and purpose. Tepid acceptance of, or reluctance to address, its spatio-temporal realities should not be a viable option for a church.[102]

The church’s temporal characteristic plays a role in this discussion. Unless a church has been recently started, it has a heritage that goes before the current manifestation of gathered people. This legacy exerts an influence on the church’s present reality, an influence either for blessing or for curse. A past pattern of weak leadership, neglect of the Word of God, halfhearted involvement in evangelism and missions, financial mismanagement, poor reputation in the neighborhood, and other negative traits may saddle a church with debilitating problems for its present generation. The opposite is also true: a heritage of strong leadership, the development of biblical literacy, commitment to missional endeavors, wise financial planning, solidarity with the community, and other positive traits will pay dividends for its present generation. Building programs undertaken in the past with an eye to the future can bring great benefits to the current manifestation of the church.[103]

Moreover, if the Lord wills, the church will have a future that goes beyond the current manifestation of gathered people. This hope should prompt careful consideration to ensure that the physical plant is well maintained. It also demands that the church work diligently to establish and maintain a good reputation in the community. Past neglect of this attention may mean that a church is viewed with suspicion, even contempt, by the surrounding neighborhood. Much can be done to restore a ruined reputation and create a new appreciation: hosting neighborhood associations in the building and a farmer’s market in the parking lot; providing much needed goods and services like clothing, food, tutoring, and job training for the community; offering free monthly oil changes for single moms in the vicinity of the church; and similar initiatives. The temporal attribute of the church prompts the church to develop a good reputation in its neighborhood such that, if the church should disappear, it would be sorely missed.

Beyond its spatio-temporal nature, the church is also eschatological. Admittedly, this attribute seems strange and sounds complicated. At the risk of oversimplifying the concept, I mean to incorporate the common notion of “already–not yet” into my discussion of the church’s identity. That is, through the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, together with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the eschaton (or age to come) has broken decisively into this present evil age. At the same time, this radical intervention of what is to come is incomplete; it is only a foretaste, a down payment, with the promise of more yet to come.[104] The church lives in a “boundary epoch” between the two advents of Jesus Christ; hence, the church is composed of “sojourners and strangers” (see 1 Pet. 2:11). It lives between the times; it experiences the “already–not yet” tension.

Though usually applied to individuals, this “already–not yet” concept can also be applied to the church: as the community of Christ, the church has experienced the decisive intervention of the age to come, bringing salvation (in part), the knowledge of God (in part), deliverance from sin (in part), the power of the Holy Spirit (in part), purity and unity (in part), and eternal life (in part). These blessings of the “already” are indeed real and powerful, yet they are incomplete and they pale in comparison with what is still to come. When Christ returns in glory, then the “not yet” will be fully realized: the church will be presented to Christ “in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing . . . holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:27). It will experience salvation in full, the knowledge of God in full, deliverance from sin in full, the power of the Holy Spirit in full, purity and unity in full, and eternal life in full. Living between the times, the church has been delivered from the power of this present evil age, yet its members must still live out their existence in this age, “although they are not to be conformed to its life but are to experience the renewing powers of the new age (Rom. 12:1–2).”[105] Thus, the church lives as a pilgrim during this earthly existence. It is in the world and for the world, but not of the world.

In accordance with this eschatological attribute, we may speak of the church as a “sign”: it points beyond itself to the redemptive work of God on behalf of fallen humanity. Importantly, the focus of the church as eschatological is not on itself but on Christ and his lordship that is currently realized in part but will one day be fully realized. As Gustav Aulén explains, “When this reign of Christ is established, it means the beginning of a new age, a new aeon, the new ‘time of fulfillment.’ The old age remains, but in the midst of this new aeon the church as regnum Christi [the reign of Christ] represents the new age.”[106] Furthermore, “The Church on earth is entrusted with being the eschatological people of God, the outcome of the work of Christ which has already, in a hidden way, sealed the destiny of the world. In the Church the future is no longer merely a possibility, an illusion, or a menace: it is already present as the chance of peace and life for those who agree to stake their all on Jesus Christ.”[107] Moreover, its eschatological dimension demands that the church be cognizant of its missional identity, as Pannenberg urges: “As a sign and tool of the coming kingdom of God the church has its end not in itself but in the future of a humanity that is reconciled to God and united by common praise of God in his kingdom.”[108] The church as eschatological is a sign of the future-made-present in and through Jesus Christ.[109]

In an important sense, the church already experiences this eschatological dimension as a present reality. In the letter to the Hebrews, the author refers to “the assembly [ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia)] of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven” (Heb. 12:23). This aspect—the “heavenly” church—is composed of all believers who have died in Christ.[110] At death, their bodies were sloughed off, and they as disembodied beings are now in the presence of God and the crucified and exalted Jesus (2 Cor. 5:1–10). As the assembly of the firstborn[111] they worship together with “innumerable angels in festal gathering” and “the spirits of the righteous made perfect” (Heb. 12:23–24).[112] At least a partial fulfillment of the eschatological hope and destiny of the church has been realized with respect to them. Though it is not the ultimate hope—glorified human beings in the new heaven and new earth—this realized dimension of that ultimate hope is a significant advancement over the church’s “already–not yet” reality in its earthly existence.

That living Christ-followers “have come” (Heb. 12:22) to this gathering that is “both heavenly and eschatological” is significant: “In one sense, the heavenly city is still the goal of the Christian’s pilgrimage. . . . In another sense, they have already reached Mt. Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the Living God.” This “already–not yet” tension “points to the fact that Christians live in the overlap of the two ages. The reference to ‘the assembly of the first-born’ is found in a context that is both heavenly and eschatological but where the ‘already’ pole of that tension is strongly accented.”[113] As pilgrims living and worshiping in the “boundary epoch” between the two advents of Jesus Christ, Christians experience the strangeness of ecclesial existence: they are truly “sojourners and strangers” (see 1 Pet. 2:11) in the here and now.

This “already–not yet” reality means that the church must develop realistic expectations of itself. On the one hand, the “already” aspect encourages the church to have high expectations for its worship, obedience, faithfulness, unity, holiness, consecration to the Lord’s will, spiritual fervor, fruitfulness, purity, good decision making, and so forth. To set the bar too low, so to speak, would be an affront to the “already” nature of the church, which has been called by God, redeemed by Jesus Christ, and empowered by the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the apostle Paul seems “at loss in the face of post-baptismal sin”:[114] “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?” (Rom. 6:1–2). On the other hand, the “not yet” aspect cautions the church not to overreach with its expectations; indeed, it warns the church to expect the continual presence of idolatry, disobedience, faithlessness, division, sin, worldliness, lukewarmness, stagnation, immorality, wrong decisions, and the like. To set the bar too high and embrace what some have called an “overrealized eschatology” would fail to reckon with the church as it actually is at this time in the redemptive plan of God. As Moltmann emphasizes, “The church is essentially experienced as an open and imperfect institution because it ‘has the function of a transition to something else.’”[115] Practically speaking, the “already–not yet” characteristic explains why the church always champions grace and counts on it to overcome entrenched sinfulness yet at times appropriately exercises church discipline. This attribute also explains why the church should hold its members to the high standards established for them by Scripture yet must bear with their mistakes and failures and forgive them when they sin (Eph. 4:32).

The spatio-temporal/eschatological characteristic of the church harkens back to Cyprian’s contention: “He cannot have God for his father who does not have the church for his mother.”[116] We must be cautious here, for with Cyprian, the exclusivity of the church for redemption—“there is no salvation outside of the church”[117]—came to the forefront in the development of the early church’s ecclesiology. But his point is well taken, when understood as a biblically warranted insistence that Christ-followers actually join and engage actively in a local church.[118] This insistence stands as a much needed corrective to the disturbing trend among American Christians who claim on the one hand to embrace Jesus and on the other hand not to need to become involved in a church.[119] Some will participate in what has been called “virtual church.”[120] Others meet with a handful of friends.[121] Some become involved in parachurch organizations in place of a church.[122] Still others completely eschew meeting with other Christians. Tragically, this trend toward noninvolvement in a church is on the increase in America today.[123]

The spatio-temporal/eschatological nature of the church rebuffs this development. As Moltmann insists, “‘The visible coming together of visible people in a special place to do something particular’ stands at the centre of the church. Without the actual, visible procedure of meeting together there is no church. That is why everything in the church is concentrated on this procedure.”[124] Ladd focuses in on the eschatological dimension in this regard:

The early Christians were conscious of being bound together because they were together bound to Christ. They were an eschatological people not only because they were called to inherit the eschatological Kingdom but because they had already experienced the blessings of the messianic era. In a sense, their fellowship was a foretaste of the fellowship of the eschatological Kingdom, displayed in history in the midst of Judaism. It was inconceivable that a believer should be such in isolation. To be a believer meant to share with other believers the life of the coming age, to be a believer in fellowship, to be in the ekklesia.[125]

Hans Küng brilliantly brings together the spatial, temporal, and eschatological elements as he calls the church—all Christ-followers, with no exceptions—to engage together as sojourners on the way:

If the Church really sees itself as the people of God, it is obvious that it can never be a static and supra-historical phenomenon, which exists undisturbed by earthly space and historical time. The Church is always and everywhere a living people, gathered together from the peoples of this world and journeying through the midst of time. The Church is essentially en route, on a journey, a pilgrimage. A Church which pitches its tents without looking out constantly for new horizons, which does not continually strike camp, is being untrue to its calling. . . . At the same time, it journeys through history, through a time of complex imperfection, towards the final perfection, the eschatological kingdom of God, led by God himself. It is essentially an interim Church, a Church in transition, and therefore not a Church of fear but of expectation and hope: a Church which is directed towards the consummation of the world by God.[126]

In summary, the identity of the church that is doxological, logocentric, and pneumadynamic has been expanded to include four additional attributes—covenantal, confessional, missional, and spatio-temporal/eschatological—that concern the gathering and sending of the church. How this identity is to be fostered and protected will be the topic of the next section.

___________________

[1]P. T. Forsyth, The Church, the Gospel, and Society (London: Independent Press, 1962), 61–62 (emphasis his).

[2]Charles W. Deweese, Baptist Church Covenants (Nashville: Broadman, 1990), viii.

[3]After rehearsing the Old Testament evidence for covenants, Deweese lists the “limited” number of “New Testament passages in which Christians make specific and explicit covenants with other Christians and with God concerning their obligations and conduct” (ibid., 17): passages about church discipline (e.g., Matt. 18:15–17); the metaphor of the church as the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23); Paul’s reference to himself and other Christians as “ministers of a new covenant” (2 Cor. 3:6); possible verbal covenants made at baptism (Rom. 6:4; Gal. 3:27; 1 Tim. 6:12; 1 Pet. 3:21); and the covenantal structure of the Lord’s Supper (Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24). At best, this support for the covenantal notion I am proposing is “indirect,” as Deweese himself admits (ibid., 15–18).

[4]Peter J. Gentry, “Speaking the Truth in Love (Eph. 4:15): Life in the New Covenant Community,” SBJT 10/2 (Summer 2006): 70–72.

[5]Haustafeln, or tables/codes of household duties.

[6]The strongest example of an ancient church covenant may be the reference to a community covenant in a letter from Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan (c. AD 112). Pliny recounts the practice (during the Lord’s Supper?) of the early Christians: “On an appointed day they had been accustomed to meet before daybreak, and to recite a hymn antiphonally to Christ, as to a god, and to bind themselves by an oath [sacramentum], not for the commission of any crime but to abstain from theft, robbery, adultery and breach of faith, and not to deny a deposit when it was claimed. After the conclusion of this ceremony. . . . ” (Pliny the Younger, Letter 10 [to Trajan] 46.7; cited in Documents of the Christian Church, ed. Henry Bettenson and Chris Maunder, 3rd [new] ed. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999], 4).

[7]Schleitheim Confession, articles 2 and 4, in William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, rev. ed. (Valley Forge, PA: Judson, 1969), 25, 26–27.

[8]I have changed the spelling and several words of this document to render it easily readable and intelligible for today (Deweese, Baptist Church Covenants, 23).

[9]John Smyth, “Principles and Inferences concerning the Visible Church,” in The Works of John Smyth, ed. W. T. Whitley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1915), 252 (emphasis mine).

[10]London Confession of Faith, 33, in Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, 165 (emphasis mine).

[11]Savoy Declaration, “Of the Institution of Churches, and the Order Appointed in Them by Jesus Christ,” 8, in Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols. (New York: Harper, 1877–1905), 3:725.

[12]1697 Covenant of Benjamin and Elias Keach; cited in Deweese, Baptist Church Covenants, 120–121. I have changed some of the spelling and wording to render the covenant readable and intelligible for today.

[13]Deweese, Baptist Church Covenants, 30.

[14]Ibid., 40.

[15]New Hampshire Baptist Confession of Faith, 13, in Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, 365.

[16]Deweese, Baptist Church Covenants, 32–36.

[17]Some fine examples of church covenants can be accessed online: Capitol Hill Baptist Church, http://www.capitolhillbaptist.org/we-are/governed/covenant/; Mars Hill Church (Seattle), http://www.marshillchurch.org/about/member-covenant. Though I would not have expected to find such an interest among the so-called emergent churches today, a comment by Alan Hirsch arrested my attention: he raised the question, “What are the irreducible minimums of a true expression of ecclesia?” He concluded there are two, the first of which is “A covenantal community: A church is formed not by people just hanging out together, but ones bound together in a distinctive bond. There is a certain obligation toward one another formed around a covenant” (Alan Hirsch, The Forgotten Way: Reactivating the Missional Church [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007], 40).

[18]Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Nashville: B&H, 1994), 613–614.

[19]Credit for the adjective used in this context goes to Michael Horton, in The Church in Emerging Culture, ed. Leonard Sweet (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 79.

[20]George Hunsberger, “Evangelical Conversion toward a Missional Ecclesiology,” in Evangelical Ecclesiology: Reality or Illusion? ed. John G. Stackhouse Jr. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 118; cf. Donald M. Macdonald, “Leadership in the Church,” in The People’s Theologian: Writings in Honour of Donald Macleod, ed. Iain D. Campbell and Malcolm Maclean (Fearn, Ross-shire, UK: Mentor/Christian Focus, 2011), 277.

[21]Seeds of this idea come from Barth’s notion of the church as the elected community of Jesus Christ (Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, 2.2., ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance, 14 vols. [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010], 195–305; also, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Human Nature, Election, and History [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977], 93–94). For a brief commentary, see Gary D. Badcock, The House Where God Lives: Renewing the Doctrine of the Church for Today (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 60–65.

[22]Hans Küng, The Church (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1967), 129.

[23]Avery Dulles, Models of the Church, expanded ed. (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 16–17. Though Dulles’s comment addresses a different context, it is appropriate for our discussion.

[24]Michael S. Horton, People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 170–171. Over half a century ago, P. T. Forsyth sounded a similar warning: “So that it is a great concern to many and a grief to some to think that what were once Churches among us are ceasing to be such, and are becoming but religious groups loosely organized for family comfort, spiritual culture, or humane action. This is a danger that threatens in particular a body like congregationalism, which, if severed from a positive doctrine of Christ and His regenerative work, would readily subside into a group of mere Christian clubs, creedless but press-led, without the feature that marks a Church off from all societies besides, religious or not. The voluntary nature of the membership tends to reduce such Churches to contractual associations” (Forsyth, Church, the Gospel, and Society, 29–30; cf. 34).

[25]Winthrop Still Hudson, “Shifting Patterns of Church Order in the Twentieth Century,” in Baptist Concepts of the Church, ed. Winthrop Still Hudson (Philadelphia: Judson, 1959), 216. Hudson’s point was made in reference to the Baptist emphasis on soul competency (the ability and responsibility of each individual to relate directly to God) but it is applicable to the fierce individualism that arises not only from that doctrine but other factors as well. My thanks to Al Mohler for drawing my attention to Hudson’s idea.

[26]Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, 611–612.

[27]Of course, this reduction of the church to a group that constitutes itself “through the coming together of regenerate individuals” is not confined to Baptists, Congregationalists, and the like. Even Friedrich Schleiermacher, from whom this quote comes, embraced this idea of the church (Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, section 115; cited in Herman Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, vol. 4 of Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008], 331).

[28]Accordingly, the church must reject being a community that is characterized as the “atomistic/contractarian” approach as set forth in Frank G. Kirkpatrick, Community: A Trinity of Models (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1986), 13–61. For a fine summary of this approach applied to the doctrine of the church, see Badcock, House Where God Lives, 167–172.

[29]John Webster, Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 47, 49.

[30]John Webster, “On Evangelical Ecclesiology,” Ecclesiology 1/1 (2004), 19–20.

[31]Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together, trans. John W. Doberstein (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1954), 21; cf. 23.

[32]D. A. Carson, Love in Hard Places (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002), 61. Similarly, P. T. Forsyth contrasts a club with a church: “In a club the membership is egoistic. It is cooperative egoism. The individual joins in order to utilize for his convenience and comfort the like desire in a number of other people. They pool their social self-interest. And a Church may be joined and used for a like reason—for the religious good to be had from religious association rather than out of the love for a common Lord or the sacrificial service of His kingdom. It may be composed of a number of people who have been persuaded that it would be for the good of their souls. But that is not a community, but only a combination. It is not a Church” (Forsyth, Church, the Gospel, and Society, 30; cf. 31–32).

[33]Michael Jinkins, The Church Faces Death: Ecclesiology in a Post-Modern Context (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 97.

[34]Bonhoeffer, Life Together, 29–30.

[35]Ibid., 112–113.

[36]Geoffrey Wainwright, Doxology: The Praise of God in Worship, Doctrine, and Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), 182.

[37]Tertullian, The Shows 4 (ANF 3:81); cf. Tertullian, The Crown 3 (ANF 3:94).

[38]Ambrose, On the Sacraments 2.20; On Mysteries 28.

[39]See, for example, Balthasar Hubmaier, On the Christian Baptism of Believers; Schleitheim Confession, article 1; Thomas Helwys, “A Declaration of Faith of English People Remaining at Amsterdam in Holland,” 10; London Confession of Faith, 39, 40.

[40]For a discussion of 1 Corinthians 15:3ff., see Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, trans. Arnold Ehrhardt (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955), 67, 129–132. For a discussion of 1 Corinthians 8:6, see Hans Conzelman, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Hermeneia, trans. James W. Leitch (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 144n38; Jerome Murphy-O’Conner, “1 Cor., VIII, 6: Cosmology or Soteriology?” Revue Biblique 85 (1978): 253–255. On the Christological hymn of Philippians 2, see Ralph P. Martin, A Hymn of Christ: Philippians 2:5–11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997). On Colossians 1:15–20, see Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, Word Biblical Commentary 44 (Waco, TX: Word, 1982), 32–37. For a general discussion, see; Jerome H. Neyrey, S. J., Give God the Glory: Ancient Prayer and Worship in Cultural Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 150.

[41]Tertullian’s rule of faith is expressed in Prescription against Heresies 13 (ANF 3:249). The rule or canon of truth of Irenaeus is similar and is found in Against Heresies 1.10.1 and 1.22.1 (ANF 1:330–331; 1:347). For a discussion of an evangelical appropriation of this early church practice, see D. Jeffrey Bingham, “Evangelicals and the Rule of Faith,” in Evangelicals and the Early Church, The Wheaton Center for Early Christian Studies, ed. George Kalantzis and Andrew Tooley (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012), 159–186,

[42]Other early church confessions include the Chalcedonian Creed, the Apostles’ Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. Confessions of faith that arose from the Reformation include the Augsburg Confession and the Formula of Concord (Lutheran); the Thirty-nine Articles (Anglican); the Belgic Confession, the French (Gallic) Confession, the First and Second Helvetic (Swiss) Confessions, the Scottish Confession, and the Westminster Confession (Reformed); and the Schleitheim Confession (Anabaptist). Modern confessions include the First London Confession, the Second London Confession, the New Hampshire Confession, and the Baptist Faith and Message (Baptist); the Statement of Faith of the Evangelical Free Church of America; the Covenant Affirmations of the Evangelical Covenant Church; the Statement of Fundamental Truths of the Assemblies of God; the Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church, the Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethren Church, together with John Wesley’s Sermons on Several Occasions and Explanatory Notes on the New Testament (United Methodist); etc. For a fine discussion of the relationship between Scripture as the primary authority and these confessions as secondary authorities in the church, see Robert Kolb and Charles P. Arand, The Genius of Luther’s Theology: A Wittenberg Way of Thinking for the Contemporary Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 166–173. For a fine discussion of a contemporary evangelical appropriation of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, see Timothy George, ed., Evangelicals and Nicene Faith: Reclaiming the Apostolic Witness (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011).

[43]Forsyth, Church, the Gospel, and Society, 23. For further discussion, see Badcock, House Where God Lives, 236–242.

[44]For example, William B. Johnson, the first president of the Southern Baptist Convention, noted “a Baptist aversion to all creeds but the Bible” (Proceedings of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1845 [Richmond, VA: H. K. Ellyson, 1845], 19; cited in Timothy George, “The Priesthood of All Believers,” in The People of God: Essays on the Believers’ Church, ed. Paul Basden and David S. Dockery [Nashville: Broadman, 1991], 89).

[45]Hirsch, Forgotten Way, 24.

[46] The placement of the recitation of the creed varies from church to church. Some churches place the creed early in the service, some after the sermon or homily, and some before the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, and the placement communicates something specific about orthodoxy, preparation for the Lord’s Supper, and the like.

[47]Wainwright’s caution should be heeded: “The maintenance of the Christian faith-identity with the past appears to require the use of the traditional creeds: but how far can the limits of theological interpretation be stretched before the ‘distance’ between the new interpretation and the old formulation becomes intolerable? . . . [T]he risk is that the new formulation will fail, by contradiction or inadequacy, to match the substance which the old formulation expressed. If that were the case, an honest contemporary identity might be achieved, but it would not be a Christian identity if the traditional creeds were a true expression of Christian identity” (Wainwright, Doxology, 192).

[48]Thus, I would concur with the first part of Robert Bellarmine’s definition of the church in De ecclesia militante as “the society of human beings which is linked by the profession of the same Christian faith. . . . ” (cited in Johann Auer, The Church: The Universal Sacrament of Salvation [Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1993], 53). Of course, I would dissent from the remaining element of Bellarmine’s definition: “. . . under the rule of the legitimate pastors, above all the one vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman pontiff.”

[49]I concur with the assessment of D. H. Williams: the contemporary church suffers from “an acute problem of continuity” (D. H. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999], 1).

[50]Anthony C. Thiselton, The Hermeneutics of Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 10; cf. Wainwright, Doxology, 189, who explains “the traditional creeds are the concise verbal forms of the Christian community’s identity in space and time.”

[51]Thomas C. Oden, Turning Around the Mainline: How Renewal Movements Are Changing the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006), 179–180. To understand how this confessional issue is galvanizing attention among missionaries working in Islamic contexts, see Timothy C. Tennent, Theology in the Context of World Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), 212.

[52]He appropriately adds this caveat: “A requirement is that all concerned mean the same thing with the same words” (Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, trans. Geoffrey Bromiley, vol. 3 [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998], 111; cf. 117). As Wainwright adds, “In this expression of the fides quae creditur, the force of the fides quâ creditur is firmly felt” (Wainwright, Doxology, 190).

[53]James H. Olthuis, “On Worldviews,” in Stained Glass: Worldview and Social Sciences, ed. Paul A. Marshall, Sander Griffioen, and Richard Mouw (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1989), 29; cited in James W. Sire, Naming the Elephant: Worldview as a Concept (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 37.

[54]Richard S. Briggs, Words in Action: Speech-Act Theory and Biblical Interpretation, Toward a Hermeneutic of Self-Involvement (Edinburgh and New York: T & T Clark, 2001), 214–215; cited in Thiselton, Hermeneutics of Doctrine, 9.

[55]Thiselton, Hermeneutics of Doctrine, 11, emphasis his. For further discussion, see H. H. Price, Belief, Muirhead Library of Philosophy (London: Allen & Unwin; and New York: Humanities, 1969), 20.

[56]Thiselton, Hermeneutics of Doctrine, 21, emphasis his.

[57]Thus, Wainwright describes “modernism” as “liturgical content with a tacit and private re-interpretation of the clauses in the creeds which referred to the virgin birth, resurrection, ascension and second advent of Christ” (Wainwright, Doxology, 189). Forsyth’s reminder is appropriate: “My dullness or disbelief does not affect the witness of the saints, classic or common, in every Church and age” (Forsyth, Church, the Gospel, and Society, 69).

[58]Martin Marty, Church Unity and Church Mission (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 62; cf. Tennent, Theology in the Context of World Christianity, 214.

[59]Oden, Turning Around the Mainline, 180. Such clear delineation between truth and heresy is helpful in the exercise of church discipline. For example, James L Reynolds, Baptist theologian and university professor in the middle part of the nineteenth century, advocated the use of church creeds, and one of his reasons focused on its benefits for church discipline. According to Greg Wills, Reynolds argued “that since Christ required churches to exercise church discipline over members who erred in their behavior or belief, they had to determine what scripture taught in order to know what was a departure from the truth. And if the churches had to determine the truth, there could be no objection to writing it down. Creeds were necessary, Reynolds argued, to protect churches from heresy and error, for they constituted ramparts protecting the correct interpretation of the scriptures from interlopers and traitors who handled the word deceitfully or corrupted its teaching” (Greg Wills, “The Church: Baptists and Their Churches in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries,” in Polity: Biblical Arguments on How to Conduct Church Life, ed. Mark E. Dever [Washington, DC: Center for Church Reform, 2001], 31). Wills’s reference is to James L. Reynolds, Church Polity: Or, The Kingdom of Christ, in Its Internal and External Development (Richmond, VA: Harrold & Murray, 1849), 81–97, 237–240.

[60]Wainwright, Doxology, 192.

[61]As discussed above, 1 Timothy 3:16 seems to be a confession of faith woven into Paul’s letter to his disciple. It consists of two stanzas: first, “He [Christ] was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels”; second, “proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.” Badcock underscores the conjunction of these two stanzas: The church’s confession of “God’s eternal will to save by Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God” is intimately linked with “the ecclesiastical themes of mission and faith” (Badcock, House Where God Lives, 269). Accordingly, the confessional and missional characteristics of the church are here jointed together. However, as Martin Downes underscores, “The first priority of the church is not mission but confession. Any emphasis on being missional that is not already clear on what it means to be confessional will misrepresent the person and work of Christ and hinder the work of the church. And without a true confession there is no authentic mission.” So the proper order, expressed in this chapter, is the confessional attribute of the church, then its missional characteristic (Martin Downes, “Entrapment: The Emerging Church Conversation and the Cultural Captivity of the Gospel,” in Reforming or Conforming? Post-Conservative Evangelicals and the Emerging Church, ed. Gary L. W. Johnson and Ronald N. Gleason [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008], 235).

[62]My translation.

[63]D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (Leicester, UK: Inter-Varsity; and Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 655. At the same time, Jesus’ action fulfills the promises concerning the Holy Spirit that Jesus makes in the Gospel of John. For further discussion, see Russell Dale Quinn, “Expectation and Fulfillment of the Gift of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John” (PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2010).

[64]For further study see Andreas J. Köstenberger, The Mission of Jesus and the Disciples According to the Fourth Gospel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988).

[65]John Marsh, The Gospel of St. John (Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1968), 641–642; cited in Carson, Gospel according to John, 656–657. The ensuing narrative (John 20:24–29), with its many similarities to the narrative currently under discussion (20:19–23)—a gathering of the disciples in the same location, the locked doors, Jesus materializing in their midst, the greeting of peace, the physical demonstration of the wounds of Jesus—reinforces the connection between Jesus’ commissioning of the disciples and people believing in the one whom they have not seen, but about whom they will learn from Jesus’ commissioned disciples. Further reinforcement comes with the conclusion of the chapter, as John underscores the purpose of the writing of his Gospel: “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (20:30–31).

[66]G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 230, emphasis his. Beale develops this notion by appealing to both Old Testament background and Revelation 11. In terms of the former, he notes the lampstand with seven lamps (Zech. 4:2–6) and the call to live “not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord of hosts” (Zech. 4:6). In Revelation 11, the two lampstands (and two olive trees, figures also found with the lampstands in Zech. 4:3) render “testimony” as “prophets” (Rev. 11:7, 10) (idem, 207, 231, 232).

[67]Narratively, such comments function in Acts to indicate that, despite persecution and internal problems, God’s blessing was abundant on the church.

[68]Graham H. Twelftree, People of the Spirit: Exploring Luke’s View of the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 10.

[69]Downes, “Entrapment,” in Reforming or Conforming? 226 (emphasis his).

[70]Jonathan R. Wilson, “Practicing Church: Evangelical Ecclesiologies at the End of Modernity,” in The Community of the Word: Toward an Evangelical Ecclesiology, ed. Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 71.

[71]The missiological literature on contextualization is extensive; some is more helpful than others. For a thorough discussion of the history and practice of contextualization, see Charles H. Kraft, ed., Appropriate Christianity (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2005); idem, Worldview for Christian Witness (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2008); Dean Gilliland, “Contextualization,” in Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, ed. A. Scott Moreau (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000), 225–227; Michael Pocock, Gailyn van Rheenen, and Douglas McConnell, The Changing Face of World Missions: Engaging Contemporary Issues and Trends (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005).

[72]Timothy C. Tennent, Theology in the Context of World Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), 198.

[73]For a discussion of differences in contextualization among Muslims, see John Travis, “The C1 to C6 Spectrum: A Practical Tool for Defining Six Types of ‘Christ-centered Communities’ (‘C’) Found in the Muslim Context,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly (October 1998): 407–408. (“John Travis” is a pseudonym.)

[74]The recent statement of the Gospel Coalition that addresses this issue of contextualization is sound though brief, urging evangelical churches to relate to the surrounding culture for the common good (The Gospel Coalition, “Theological Vision for Ministry”; III.2; available at www.thegospelcoalition.org).

[75]Thus, I place this traditional characteristic of the church—“I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church”—under the missional attribute of the church. In my opinion, the missional attribute is more foundational than the church’s catholicity. Indeed, catholicity flows from the church’s missional identity.

[76]Though this notion of catholicity took several centuries to penetrate the actual consciousness of Protestants, it existed conceptually in Protestantism’s early statements of faith. For example, according to the Second Helvetic Confession (17), “We, therefore, call this Church catholic because it is universal, scattered through all parts of the world, and extended unto all times, and is not limited to any times or places.” Furthermore, in answer to the question, “What do you believe concerning ‘the holy, catholic church?’” the Heidelberg Catechism responds, “I believe that from the beginning to the end of the world, and from among the whole human race, the Son of God, by his Spirit and his Word, gathers, protects and preserves for himself, in the unity of the true faith, a congregation chosen for eternal life.” (Heidelberg Catechism, question 54 [emphasis mine]).

[77]Jürgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, trans. Margaret Kohl (New York: Harper & Row, 1977), 338.

[78]G. C. Berkouwer, The Church, trans. James E. Davison (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976), 393.

[79]I hold to a multiple intentions view of the atonement. For further discussion, see Bruce Demarest, The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of Salvation, Foundations of Evangelical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1997, 2006), 189–193; Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears, Death by Love (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008), 163–182.

[80]Wainwright, Doxology, 132–133; cf. Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 45–46. Please note that what is being affirmed here is the universal mission of the church, not universalism, the belief that every human being will be saved.

[81]As Mark Dever notes in a comment on the four historic characteristics of the church, “In one sense, the catholicism of the church is simply its attributes—unity, holiness, apostolicity—appearing everywhere and at anytime there has been a true church or true Christians” (Mark E. Dever, “A Catholic Church,” in Richard D. Phillips, Philip Graham Ryken, and Mark E. Dever, The Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic [Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2004], 70).

[82]Jürgen Moltmann notes this to be one of the purposes of the church vis-à-vis the other world religions: “It is one goal of mission to awaken faith, to baptize, to found churches and to form a new life under the lordship of Christ. Geographically this mission proceeds to the ends of the earth. It proceeds numerically and tries to reach as many people as possible. It thinks in terms of quantity and evolves strategies for ‘church growth’” (Moltmann, Church in the Power of the Spirit, 152).

[83]Of course, this is not an absolute difference, as I will seek to bring out in the following few paragraphs. The current emphasis on the missional nature of the church has been seen before, even if different forms and expressions for it have been articulated. For example, well over a hundred years ago, David Bannerman addressed the “chief end of the Church” in a way that resonates with the current missional focus: “The chief end of the Church is to be in this world what Christ Himself was, to do in it what He did, to carry on to final success the great work for which He came from heaven” (David Bannerman, The Scripture Doctrine of the Church: Historically and Exegetically Considered [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1887], 246).

[84]Moltmann, Church in the Power of the Spirit, 10. He adds, “It is not the church that has a mission of salvation to fulfil to the world; it is the mission of the Son and the Spirit through the Father that includes the church, creating a church as it goes on its way” (ibid., 64).

[85]Hunsberger, “Evangelical Conversion toward a Missional Ecclesiology,” 110.

[86]Barth, Church Dogmatics, 4.3.2, pp. 573ff.

[87]Hunsberger, “Evangelical Conversion toward a Missional Ecclesiology,” 119.

[88]Ibid., 120, 121.

[89]Ibid., 109.

[90]Ibid., 110.

[91]For further discussion, see G. R. Evans, The Church and the Churches: Toward an Ecumenical Ecclesiology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 55–58; Badcock, House Where God Lives, 8–10.

[92]George Hunsberger, “Missional Vocation: Called and Sent to Represent the Reign of God,” in The Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America, ed. Darrell Guder (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 79–80. Hunsberger’s observation is not intended as a compliment to Protestantism; nonetheless, he is onto something, and something that is not necessarily negative, as I will attempt to demonstrate.

[93]Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Discipleship (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 225.

[94]Reid Monaghan, personal correspondence.

[95]Ibid.

[96]John Webster, “The Visible Attests the Invisible,” in Community of the Word, 101.

[97]Craig G. Bartholomew, Where Mortals Dwell: A Christian View of Place (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 293–297.

[98]I recall two different sensations in regard to experiences of worship in two different “worship spaces.” The first was listening to a sermon preached by a pastor who was situated immediately below a basketball hoop in an all-purpose gym that doubled as recreational facility and Sunday morning worship service location. At about the halfway point of the sermon, around 11:45 a.m., my concentration began to wander from the message to thoughts about the upcoming basketball game I looked forward to watching a bit later that afternoon. The other took place when I walked into massive St. Peter’s Cathedral in Riga, Latvia, and sat down in a pew. My head inclined as my eyes moved from the horizontal to the vertical plane; I found my attention riveted upward. For a good forty-five minutes I engaged effortlessly in giving praise and thanksgiving to the transcendent God. Accordingly, I concur with Erwin McManus: “You feel it every time you enter a building: Shape matters. Buildings with high ceilings create a sense of mystery and awe. The great cathedrals powerfully accomplish this effect. . . . For too long the church has underestimated the power of space, shape, and design” (Erwin Raphael McManus, An Unstoppable Force: Daring to Become the Church God Had in Mind [Loveland, CO: Group, 2001], 138). Michael Farley concurs: “[I]t is widely acknowledged that the environment always affects the way that the people of God perceive the theological nature and purpose of corporate worship. Architecture inevitably speaks a theological message that either reinforces or contradicts the content of the liturgy itself.” Farley urges the church to “develop a theological approach to architecture and the aesthetic/symbolic by drawing upon more general biblical truths beyond the practices explicitly described in the NT” (Michael A. Farley, “What Is ‘Biblical’ Worship? Biblical Hermeneutics and Evangelical Theologies of Worship,” JETS 51/3 [September 2008]: 611). An interesting study on this topic is Matt Branaugh, “What the Unchurched See in a Building,” Leadership Journal 29/3 (Summer 2008): 67.

[99]As a simple example, and in consideration of behavioral and educational studies, the youngest children (not including babies and infants) need a great amount of space for their activities. Accordingly, the largest educational spaces should be dedicated as the Sunday school classes for kindergartners and those in the earliest primary grades.

[100]Older church buildings feature a foyer at their entrance. While this space is well designed as a drop off and welcoming area, a foyer is not conducive to building relationships among church members. For this reason some newer church buildings include a large gathering area that resembles a Starbucks coffee shop. This space does indeed promote fellowship in a relaxed atmosphere.

[101]Wayne Ward captures another aspect of this physical dimension when he notes that the shift in church structure from Catholic Church sanctuaries to those of the Protestant churches was due to the change in the focus of worship between the two metadenominations (Wayne E. Ward, “The Worship of the Church,” in The People of God: Essays on the Believers’ Church, ed. Paul Basden and David S. Dockery [Nashville: Broadman, 1991]).

[102]Herman Bavinck, referencing a certain “Mister Berland,” agreed with that scholar’s opinion that “great art (meaning general art) is not possible today because of the lack of a reigning worldview.” If Bavinck and Berland are correct, then a reason for the church’s inability or failure to address these spatio-temporal matters is the absence of a well-developed Christian worldview that goes beyond mere utilitarianism or pragmatism (or, certainly not today but at times in the church’s past, intellectualism) (Herman Bavinck, Essays on Religion, Science, and Society, ed. John Bolt, trans. Harry Boonstra and Gerrit Sheeres [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008], 253).

[103]Hinson Memorial Baptist Church (now, Hinson Church) in Portland, Oregon, as it was constituted when I was chairman of the board (1999–2003), was the beneficiary of wise planning and investment in regard to its physical realities as past generations of church members bought up properties surrounding the main church building. These properties became rental houses for missionaries on furlough and for the poor, and undeveloped space became parking lots and the location for the neighborhood farmer’s market.

[104]George Eldon Ladd is generally credited with the evangelical formulation of the “already–not yet” framework, in A Theology of the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 595–597. Many evangelicals have followed him.

[105]Ibid., 597.

[106]Gustav Aulén, Faith of the Christian Church, trans. Eric Wahlstrom and G. B. Everett Arden (London: SCM, 1954), 331.

[107]J. J. von Allmen, “The Theological Frame of a Liturgical Renewal,” CQ 2 (1969–1970), 8.

[108]Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 45.

[109]Though his emphasis is on the church as “the great sacramental sign which represents Jesus Christ,” Eberhard Jüngel has a helpful discussion of the church as a sign (Eberhard Jüngel, “The Church as Sacrament?” in Theological Essays, ed. and trans. John B. Webster [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1989], 191–213).

[110]The expression does not refer to elect angelic beings because the idea of enrollment in heaven applies particularly to human beings (Luke 10:20; Rev. 21:27). Neither does it refer to the old covenant people of God—“the patriarchs and other renowned saints of the ancient Church”—before Christ’s coming, as Calvin maintained (John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews, trans. and ed. John Owen [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005], 334). For further discussion, see F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964/1981), 376–379.

[111]“Firstborn” (πρωτότοκοι; prōtotokoi [plural]) connects these followers with the “Firstborn” (πρωτότοκος; prōtotokos [singular]) Jesus Christ, so named because he is the Son of God (Heb. 1:6), or because he is preeminent over all creation (Col. 1:15–17), or because he was the first to be resurrected from the dead (Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5). A combination of those ideas is also possible.

[112]This expression most likely refers to the whole company of old covenant followers of Yahweh, who are listed in chapter 11 and described there (Heb. 11:39–40) as people who, “though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.” Unlikely, then, is Philip Hughes’s interpretation of the phrase as “an inclusive designation, comprehending all who through faith have been accounted righteous by God (10:38) from the beginning of the world onward (chapter 11).” This interpretation seems to overlook the biblical author’s point of listing different groups of beings that are engaged in worship—either as givers (angelic, human) or recipients (God, Jesus) of worship (Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977], 548–551).

[113]Peter T. O’Brien, “The Church as a Heavenly and Eschatological Entity,” in The Church in the Bible and the World: An International Study, ed. D. A. Carson (Exeter, UK: Paternoster; and Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1987), 97.

[114]Wainwright, Doxology, 128.

[115]Moltmann, Church in the Power of the Spirit, 25. He cites W.-D Marsch, Institution im Übergang. Evangelische Kirche zwischen Tradition und Reform (Göttingen, Germany: n.p., 1970), 175; cf. Badcock, House Where God Lives, 10.

[116]The entire section is important: “The spouse of Christ cannot be made an adulteress; she is undefiled and chaste. She knows but one home, and guards with virtuous chastity the sanctity of one chamber. She it is who preserves us for God, who enrolls into the kingdom the sons she has borne. Whosoever stands aloof from the church and is joined to an adulteress is cut off from the promises given to the church; and he that leaves the church of Christ attains not to Christ’s rewards. He is an alien, an outcast, an enemy. He cannot have God for his father who does not have the church for his mother. If anyone was able to escape outside of Noah’s ark, then he also escapes who is outside the doors of the church” (Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church 6 [ANF 5:423]).

[117]Cyprian, Epistle 72.21 (ANF 5:384). The Protestant perspective on this expression appears in the Second Helvetic Confession (17): “Outside the church of God there is no salvation. But we esteem fellowship with the true Church of Christ so highly that we deny that those can live before God who do not stand in fellowship with the true church of God, but separate themselves from it. For as there was no salvation outside Noah’s ark when the world perished in flood; so we believe that there is no certain salvation outside Christ, who offers himself to be enjoyed by the elect in the church; and hence we teach that those who wish to live ought not to be separated from the true church of Christ.”

[118]Clowney affirms the necessity of the church for salvation, but his discussion references the universal church; he is silent on the necessity of the local church in this regard (Edmund P. Clowney, The Church: Sacraments, Worship, Ministry, Mission, Contours of Christian Theology [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995], 57).

[119]So George Barna claims, “Scripture teaches us that devoting your life to loving God with all your heart, mind, strength, and soul is what honors Him. Being part of a local church may facilitate that. Or it might not” (George Barna, Revolution: Finding Vibrant Faith beyond the Walls of the Sanctuary [Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2005], 37). Michael Horton strongly criticizes Barna’s “revolution” (Horton, People and Place, 177–180). Over half a century ago, P. T. Forsyth expressed concern that the church was headed in this direction: “So, if it is asked, ‘What is the security for investing our souls’ sympathies and energies in this concern, the Church?’ we answer . . . that the question is one that no Christian should ask and no worldling would” (P. T. Forsyth, The Church and the Sacraments [London: Independent Press, 1947], 4).

[120]The website www.virtualchurch.com advertises as the following: “VirtualChurch.com is the first church of its kind in the world. It is created to give you not only a full church experience, but a worship service Divinely tailored just for you.” This site should not be confused with several other sites including: www.virtualchurch.org, and www.webchurch.org. Connecting with the virtual world called Second Life, LifeChurch.tv (an actual church based in Oklahoma City) produces a Second Life campus called Experience Island. A live worship service of LifeChurch.tv is streamed via video and web cam, thus creating Experience Island on Second Life. Avatars—virtual people who are customized by actual people—attend the virtual service, sitting in virtual pews in a virtual 3-D auditorium that resembles the actual Oklahoma City church. See: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/11560493/ or www.LifeChurch.tv.

[121]An example is Monkfish Abbey in Seattle, whose website is accessible at: http://www.monkfish-abbey.org.

[122]D. Michael Lindsay highlights a particular example of this phenomenon. Having interviewed hundreds of America’s most important leaders, he explains “Many of the nation’s most powerful believers—presidents, CEOs, entertainers and athletes—won’t be found in the pews on Sundays, thus creating a growing gap between them and ‘the people.’” Rather, they are involved in exclusive Bible studies, invitation-only programs, the National Prayer Breakfast, and other parachurch gatherings. Lindsay finds this trend of loosening “ties to churches in their own communities . . . deeply troubling. It signals the loss of one of the few social settings where average ‘Joes’ used to rub elbows with the powerful, and where the powerful kept in touch with the concerns of average folks.” He calls for a halt to this trend and warns, “Otherwise, affluent believers will continue to leave their congregations—and their fellow believers—behind in their ascent, creating a gated community of the soul” (D. Michael Lindsay, “A Gated Community in the Evangelical World,” USA Today, February 11, 2008, 13A).

[123]This widespread abandonment of the local church is not without its reasons, as Pannenberg underscores: “in mass form, and in terms of a secular lifestyle as compared with the monastic, an individual Christianity aloof from the church is a typical phenomenon of the modern age occasioned by the scandal of the division of Christianity into denominations that denounce each other, yet also favored by what has become the treatment of religious confession as a private matter, so that individual subjectivity seems to be the true center of religion, and the religious fellowship of the church, in contrast, seems to be something secondary” (Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 125). Other reasons often cited by those who exit from and do not return to church include the hypocrisy of its members, the ineptitude of its leaders, judgmental attitudes, legalism, irrelevancy, and overall bad experiences with the church. Though these may be genuine explanations (which must encourage churches to become more pure), they cannot be used as excuses for not being involved in a church. See Julia Duin, Quitting Church: Why the Faithful Are Fleeing and What to Do about It (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008).

[124]Moltmann, Church in the Power of the Spirit, 334. He cites O. Weber, Versammelte Gemeinde. Beiträge zum Gespräch über Kirche und Gottesdienst (Neukirchen, Germany: n.p., 1949/1975), 32.

[125]Ladd, Theology of the New Testament, 388.

[126]Küng, Church, 130–131.

III

THE VISION ACTUALIZED—

THE GROWTH OF

THE CHURCH

CHAPTER

FIVE

THE PURITY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH

Setting forth a vision of the church is not and cannot be a mere exercise in painting some idealized portrait at which others stare and either scoff, yawn, or marvel. Rather, the church as a concrete entity exists to grow and expand in the world; thus, any adequate vision of it must include a definite proposal, rooted in Scripture and with an eye on wisdom from the past, for its actualization. Over the course of the next two chapters, three specific areas will be presented, all of which contribute to the growth of the church as just envisioned. These areas are the pursuit of the purity of the church, the maintenance of its unity, and the exercise of church discipline. The first two matters will be taken together in this chapter; church discipline will be addressed in chapter 6.

The growth of the church—the realization of the biblical vision—involves both purity and unity, understood in three ways. In a positional sense, both of these are realities for the church: the church is already holy (1 Cor. 1:1–2) just as it is already united (Eph. 4:3). In a purposive sense, both of these are essential aims for the church as it grows: the church is to be “holy and without blemish” (5:27), and it is to “attain to the unity of the faith” (4:13). Thus, the church orients itself and is pointed toward purity and unity. In an instrumental sense, these two are essential processes fostering the growth of the church: as it pursues greater and greater purity and as it maintains its unity, the biblical vision becomes more and more actualized. Thus, affirming the purity and unity of the church means affirming that the church, which is holy and one, is directed at and directs itself toward perfect holiness and oneness, and pursues this end by means of increase in purity and maintenance of unity.

For those who await at this point a classic discussion of the historical attributes of the church—“the church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic”—their expectations will likely go unsatisfied by the following presentation. As noted earlier, I have not structured my ecclesiology according to these four attributes because they were formulated against a historical, theological, and cultural backdrop that was significantly different from our twenty-first-century location. Moreover, I believe that my seven characteristics are more foundational for the identity of the church than are the four classical attributes. In regard to these two attributes of purity and unity, they flow from the logocentric and pneumatological characteristics of the church. Specifically, the incarnate Word Jesus Christ sacrificed himself to sanctify the church that one day will be perfectly holy (Eph. 5:25–27) and completely united (4:13), and the inspired Word of Scripture is a means by which the church is being purified and united (John 17:17, 20–21). Also, the Holy Spirit is the ground of both holiness—he is the one who sanctifies (i.e., renders holy) the church (1 Pet. 1:2; 2 Cor. 3:18)—and unity, which the church enjoys “in the Spirit” (Eph. 4:30).

THE PURITY OF THE CHURCH

Why holiness is associated at all with the church is explained by the loving, sacrificial cross work of its groom, Jesus Christ: “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, . . . so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:25–27). Christ’s design for the church is that she should be a magnificently beautiful and chaste bride (2 Cor. 11:2–3)—perfectly holy, completely pure for him, her husband. He consecrated himself with sacrificial love to sanctify the church, a work that is begun in part through the forgiveness of sin but that also awaits a future complete fulfillment. To the Spirit, whose name is Holy (John 14:26) and who takes Jesus’ place (John 14:16), Christ has given the responsibility of purifying the church during its earthly pilgrimage through his sanctifying ministry (1 Pet. 1:2). This process of fostering holiness, which under the old covenant was associated with Yahweh and the law of Moses (2 Cor. 3:12–16), is now the work of the Spirit: he progressively transforms the church into the image of the Lord (vv. 17–18) so that it is characterized by the fruit of the Spirit: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (Gal. 5:22–23). Paul elsewhere explains that “the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled” by the church as it walks “not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Rom. 8:4). This reality is the divine work prompting the church’s sanctification.

In response to and always in dependence upon this divine initiative and foundation for sanctification, the church aims at perfect holiness by pursuing greater and greater purity.[1] It embraces sanctification as the will of God; this has specific reference to abstaining from sexual immorality (1 Thess. 4:3). The church’s “spiritual worship” is the presentation of itself “as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God” (Rom. 12:1); this entails refusal to compromise with the world (v. 2). Its yielding to divine guidance and sovereignty means that the church is “filled with the Spirit,” resulting in intimate fellowship, sincere worship, constant thanksgiving, and humble submission (Eph. 5:18–21). It obeys the command to “strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14); this entails refusal to fall short of God’s grace, become defiled, and be “sexually immoral or unholy like Esau” (vv. 15–16). The church fixes its eyes on Jesus, realizing that “what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure” (1 John 3:2–3). The imitation of Christ, therefore, is an important component of the church’s sanctification (Eph. 5:1–2; 1 Pet. 2:21–23).

Moreover, encouraged by the promises of God’s presence and fatherly attention, the church eschews association with all that is opposed to purity and cleanses itself “from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God” (2 Cor. 6:14–7:1).[2] Cognizant of living in the end times—the period between the first and second coming of its Lord, in which “the present form of this world is passing away” (1 Cor. 7:31) with increasing haste (v. 29)—members of the church live “as not”: if married, as not married; if mourning, as not mourning; if rejoicing, as not rejoicing; if buying, as not buying; if dealing with the world, as not dealing with the world (vv. 29–30).[3] The church further acknowledges and bears the responsibility to “consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near” (Heb. 10:24–25).[4] Practically speaking, the time-proven spiritual disciplines stimulate the advancement of the church in sanctification: the personal disciplines of reading, studying, meditating on, and memorizing Scripture; prayer; fasting; celebration; confession of sin; silence; simplicity; sacrifice; guidance; study; and, on a corporate level, worship, service, submission, giving, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, fellowship, and group prayer.[5]

Accordingly, the holy church realizes its aim of perfect holiness through the pursuit of increasing purity. As John Calvin explained, “The church is holy . . . in the sense that it is daily advancing and is not yet perfect: it makes progress from day to day but has not yet reached its goal of holiness.”[6] This reality exhibits “an eschatological tension: holiness, or the new life, is a gift of God already given, and yet its realization still has to be striven for, because the power of sin for the present remains such that there is danger of a relapse into the ways of the old eon that is now passing away.”[7]

The Reality of More-Pure and Less-Pure Churches

Wayne Grudem has a particularly helpful discussion of the purity of the church, which he defines as “its degree of freedom from wrong doctrine and conduct, and its degree of conformity to God’s revealed will for the church.”[8] Both scripturally and empirically, we acknowledge the reality of more pure and less pure churches. Biblical examples of the former category are the churches at Philippi and Thessalonica, whereas the churches of Corinth and Galatia illustrate the second type. Empirically, readers are probably aware of churches in their geographical area—hopefully, those to which they belong—that are renowned for preaching the Word, engaging God in worship, missional endeavors, and the like. These are more pure churches, generally speaking. They stand in contrast with other churches in which biblical teaching is weak, worship is superficial, and missional engagement is rare. These are less pure churches, generally speaking. This distinction is between more pure and less pure churches. Another, more foundational distinction is between true churches—assemblies that are defined by and live the gospel of Jesus Christ—and false churches—assemblies that either were not founded on the genuine gospel of Jesus Christ or have departed from it. Examples of the latter include the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and the Unitarian-Universalist Church. These churches are not just less pure; they are false churches. But within the category of true churches, a distinction exists between more pure and less pure churches. Diagrammatically, this discussion may be represented by figure 5.1.[9]

FIG. 5.1 Churches False and True

Individual churches may examine themselves as to their relative purity by considering the seven attributes of the church as I have discussed these traits in preceding chapters. That is, churches may evaluate themselves by asking: As a church, are we more or less pure? Are we more free from error and more fully conformed to God’s revealed will for the church, or are we less free from error and less conformed to God’s revealed will for the church, in regard to the following characteristics:

- doxological, or oriented to the glory of God

- logocentric, or focused on the Word of God, understood to refer to Jesus Christ the incarnate Word and Scripture the inspired Word

- pneumadynamic, or created, gathered, gifted, and empowered by the Holy Spirit

- covenantal, or gathered as members in (new) covenant relationship with God and in covenant relationship with each other

- confessional, or united by both personal confession of faith in Christ and common confession of the historic Christian faith

- missional, or identified as the body of divinely called and divinely sent ministers to proclaim the gospel and advance the kingdom of God

- spatio-temporal/eschatological, or assembled as a historical reality (located in space and time) and possessing a certain hope and clear destiny while it lives the strangeness of ecclesial existence in the here-and-now.

As such evaluation takes place, churches should remind themselves that they “can be more pure in some areas and less pure in others.” Grudem rightly cautions that “most churches will tend to think that the areas in which they are strong are the most important areas, and the areas where they are weak are less important.”[10] As the above perspective on holiness advocates, however, churches are to pursue greater and greater purity in all areas. Though churches should render thanksgiving to God for those characteristics in which they are more pure, they should not rest on past achievement but strive ahead toward even greater purity while also giving attention to areas of less purity so as to develop them. At the other extreme are churches that believe that they are fully holy and that all other churches are not as pure. This arrogant appraisal often leads to these “perfect” churches breaking off all fellowship with the other “imperfect” churches so as to avoid being contaminated by their impurity. The “already–not yet” reality of the church critiques this presumptive self-assessment.[11]

As for personal participation in churches, Grudem’s counsel for individual Christians is wise in light of the reality that, as they work for the purity of the church to which they belong, it will continue to be more or less impure and will never be perfect: “This means that Christians have no obligation to seek the purest church they can find and stay there, and then leave it if an even purer church comes to their attention. Rather, they should find a true church in which they can have effective ministry and in which they will experience Christian growth as well, and then should stay there and minister, continually working for the purity of that church.”[12] But what about continued involvement in a church that drifts dangerously away from the faith?

On the principle of separation from unbelievers or from fundamental error that would involve the denial of the Christian faith, Christians would seem to be required on doctrinal grounds to withdraw from a church and join or form a new organization only when the doctrinal error is so serious and so pervasive that the parent church has become a false church, no longer part of the body of Christ. This would be a church which is no longer a fellowship of true believers, no longer a part of the body of Christ, or no longer a place where those who believe its teachings will find salvation.[13]

Thus, in the case of a church that has become a false church, individual Christians must leave the church and join themselves to a true church.

This scenario is a fairly rare development, yet many Christians regularly leave true churches and become involved in other true churches. The majority do so because of personal needs not being met: they believe that their current church is failing to help them to grow spiritually, or they do not feel engaged in meaningful work in the church.[14] Another important reason is a sense of disillusionment with the people in their current church: those who leave have felt judged by the others, or consider the others to be hypocritical.[15] But this practice should not be as commonplace as it appears to be today. John Calvin’s strong words against ever leaving a true church offer a somber challenge:

[N]o one is permitted to spurn its authority, flout its warnings, resist its counsels, or make light of its chastisements—much less to desert it and break its unity. For the Lord esteems the communion of his church so highly that he counts as a traitor and apostate from Christianity anyone who arrogantly leaves any Christian society, provided it cherishes the true ministry of Word and sacraments. He so esteems the authority of the church that when it is violated he believes his own diminished.[16]

Realistically, telling or threatening people not to leave a true church will seldom deter them, so I offer four questions for Christians to ponder as they consider leaving their current church:

- Have I expended all of my opportunities to effect change in this church?

- Will continued participation in this church exert a negative impact on my relationship with and worship of God, my ministry for Jesus Christ, the use of my spiritual gifts, etc.?

- Do I have to compromise too much—essential doctrines and practices,[17] a lifestyle in accordance with biblical values and principles—in order to remain in this church?

- Do I have a legitimate reason for leaving?[18]

A positive answer to any or even all of these questions does not necessarily mean that the step of leaving one’s church is the right one. These questions serve only as indicators, not strict determiners of one’s actions, so positive responses may indicate that leaving the church is the proper course of action but they do not demand departure. Indeed, leaving a true church should be a fairly rare step; certainly, it should be far less common than it is in many of today’s evangelical churches. An important reason for this affirmation is that it violates the unity of the church.

THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH

In addition to the pursuit of purity, the growth of the church involves unity, understood in three ways. In a positional sense, unity is a reality for the church: the church is endowed with the gift of oneness, so that it is already united (Eph. 4:3). In a purposive sense, the church’s aim is to “attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (v. 13). Moreover, the church is one element that is part of the divine plan for the consummation of the entire creation, “a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth” (1:10). Therefore the church pursues the complete realization of perfect unity. In an instrumental sense, oneness among its members fosters the growth of the church: it works hard to maintain the unity with which it has been endowed (4:3). Thus, affirming the unity of the church means affirming that the church, which is endowed with oneness, pursues the end of perfect unity by working diligently to maintain its unity.

Foundations of Church Unity

The Catechism of the Catholic Church rightly captures the theological foundation of the unity of the church:

The Church is one because of her source: “the highest exemplar and source of this mystery is the unity, in the Trinity of Persons, of one God, the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit.” The Church is one because of her founder: for “the Word made flesh, the prince of peace, reconciled all men to God by the cross . . . restoring the unity of all in one people and one body.” The Church is one because of her “soul”: “It is the Holy Spirit, dwelling in those who believe and pervading and ruling over the entire Church, who brings about that wonderful communion of the faithful and joins them together so intimately in Christ that he is the principle of the Church’s unity.”[19]

To situate this discussion within my ecclesiology, the church’s affirmation and pursuit of its own unity flows from its affirmation of itself as doxological, logocentric, and pneumadynamic. Other commonalities that promote unity will also be highlighted.

Exploring each of these three characteristics in greater detail, we note that the church is united because its triune God exists eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—not three gods but three persons, each of whom is fully God, in the unity of the Godhead, so that God is one. This eternal trinitarian nature of God is not uniformity, but unity in diversity. The three persons, though having the exact same attributes and power, are diverse: the Father is neither the Son nor the Spirit; the Son is neither the Father nor the Spirit; and the Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son. They are diverse persons enjoying different eternal relationships and being principally responsible for different kinds of trinitarian works in which they inseparably share. Yet, they are not diverse in terms of being three different gods; rather, they are three diverse persons of the one eternal Godhead. Theirs is unity in diversity.

This eternal trinitarian reality of unity in diversity is the source and template of ecclesial unity, as Jesus the Son indicates when he prays to the Father for the church, “that they [Christ-followers] may be one, even as we are one” (John 17:11, 22). Jesus specifies the type of unity: “that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you” (v. 21). This mutual indwelling of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father—the theological term is perichoresis—becomes the model and aim for the church’s oneness: the church must embrace a similar unity in diversity. Again, this unity is not uniformity.[20] The church does not insist that everyone be exactly the same; this denies individuality and uniqueness of personality, the diversity that is a legitimate part of true unity. Nor is this unity of the church the same as union. The church does not only come together embracing particular purposes so as to achieve certain limited goals with a limited degree of unity.[21] Rather, the unity with diversity toward which the church aspires is a much more robust harmony modeled after the interrelationships of the Father, Son, and Spirit.

The church’s logocentricity further supports the church’s unity. The incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ, strongly advocated the unity of his people. Speaking of his people the Jews, he noted, “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep” (John 10:14–15). Jesus then added, “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd” (v. 16). This expression “other sheep” is a reference to the Gentile people. Accordingly, Jesus’ vision is to unite together in one flock both Jews and Gentiles under himself, the one shepherd (cf. Eph. 2:11–3:6). This vision is actualized by his sacrificial death, resulting in this continuous hymn being sung in heaven: “Worthy are you . . . for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation . . .” (Rev. 5:9). Furthermore, and expanding on our earlier discussion, Jesus prayed for the unity of his people, an expansive line of followers from the first apostles to the very last disciples alive at his second coming:

I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. (John 17:20–23)

Jesus prays that the church’s unity will have both vertical and horizontal dimensions: vertically, a oneness in the relationship between Christ-followers and the Father and Son (“that they also may be in us”); horizontally, a unity in the relationships between Christ-followers themselves (“that they may all be one”).[22] As this unity is pursued and realized, the impact is directed especially at those outside of the church. Indeed, the world witnessing the unity of the church is set to understand the Father’s sending of his beloved Son out of his love for the world (cf. John 3:16).

The logocentric characteristic of the church means further that the inspired Word of God is to be heard on this issue of unity.[23] Positively, Scripture sets forth unity as an aim of the church during its earthly pilgrimage: as its members, we are to progress “until we attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God” (Eph. 4:13). The biblical vision for church unity is that its members “live in harmony with one another” (Rom. 12:16), “being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind” (Phil. 2:2). Negatively, Scripture rebukes any and all obstacles to church unity. For example, Paul’s list of “the works of the flesh” includes eight attitudes or actions (out of fifteen carnal deeds) that hinder or destroy unity: “enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy” (Gal. 5:19–21). The church of Corinth is the inscripturated example of a faction-riddled assembly (1 Cor. 1:10–13; 3:1–5), but other biblical reminders underscore that divisiveness between different socioeconomic groups (1 Cor. 11:17–34), disagreements between members (Phil. 4:2–3), and differences in personal scruples leading to judgment and despising of others (Romans 14) are not the way it is supposed to be in the church.[24]

The pneumadynamic attribute interfaces with this discussion in that the Holy Spirit is the creator and sustainer of the church’s unity. Notably, Paul urges the church “to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called . . . eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:1, 3). As Everett Ferguson underscores, “The human task is not to achieve unity among themselves, but to keep the unity already created. . . . ‘United and pursuing unity’ describes the situation of members of Christ’s body, the church.”[25] Though the church does not have to generate its own unity, it nonetheless must work diligently to preserve the gift of the Spirit because, as discussed above, many factors corrupt and destroy its Spirit-given oneness.

Paul surrounds this affirmation of the Spirit’s unifying work with seven commonalities that, in addition to its doxological, logocentric, and pneumadynamic attributes, further join and hold together the church: “There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph. 4:4–6). The “one body” is the church itself, with its many diverse members joined together under its one head, Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:22–23), as Paul underscores elsewhere: “For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ and individually members one of another” (Rom. 12:4–5). The “one Spirit” is the Holy Spirit, through whom both Jews and Gentiles have access to God (Eph. 2:18) and by whom both “are being built together into a dwelling place for God” (v. 22). As Ferguson explains, “No differences in the modern world are greater than the cultural and religious differences between Jews and Gentiles in antiquity, but the Spirit creates unity out of differences.”[26] The “one hope” to which the church is called (cf. Eph. 1:18) is “the hope of eternal life” (Titus 1:2; 3:7), the fullness of salvation (Rom. 8:23–25; Gal. 5:5; Col. 1:5; 1 Thess. 5:8) to be realized at the return of Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:3–9, 13). This hope is grounded on and springs from the message of the gospel (Col. 1:23) and is found in Christ and Christ alone (Eph. 1:12).

Furthermore, this hope is set on “one Lord,” “the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe” (1 Tim. 4:10). Indeed, “there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:5–6). For this reason, it is “by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” that Paul appeals to the church in Corinth, urging “that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). The “one faith” does not refer to the evangelical virtue of belief or trust that individuals place in Jesus Christ for salvation and express as they walk with him. Rather, it refers to “the one faith confessed by the people called by God,” or sound doctrine.[27] As explained previously, faith in the first sense refers to the act of faith (fides quâ creditur), whereas faith in the second sense refers to the substance of faith (fides quae creditur). Though both are important, Paul’s reference is to the latter sense of the faith as sound doctrine. In one sense, this “common faith” (Titus 1:4) is a given, but in another sense, the church aims to “attain to the unity of the faith” (Eph. 4:13).

The “one baptism” that unites the church does not refer to Christ’s baptism of believers with the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13), though this is part of the manifold work of God at salvation that unites Christians in the one body of Christ. Rather, it refers to water baptism as the very tangible initiatory rite for all converts. As Paul explains, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:27–28). Because all Christians have been baptized, portraying their identification with the death and resurrection of Christ and their cleansing from all sins, this common rite demonstrates their unity.[28]Finally, the “one God and Father of all” is the one who has created all people—hence, the unity of the entire human race, in the sense of creation (Acts 17:26)—and has redeemed all people whom he has chosen, called, and saved through the work of the Spirit and belief in the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ (2 Thess. 2:13–14). Because all Christians have these seven elements in common, the unity of the church is fostered. As Ferguson concludes,

These seven items are part of the “givens” of Christianity. Unity is already provided by God in the most important things. Sharing these fundamental things gives a broad and strong basis for unity. In view of what unites, the things that divide seem less formidable. . . . In a sense, to be divided is to say God has not done enough to produce unity; it is to minimize the most important aspects of the Christian faith. These doctrinal unities should encourage the expression and application of unity among Christians.[29]

The church can think of other factors that unify it or express its unity: when it administers the Lord’s Supper with the one loaf of bread that is broken and then distributed to participating members, the church portrays the reality of its oneness: “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17). When the church assembles together, it prays that it “may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6). This “one voice of common worship” joins the church together and fosters its unity. As noted earlier, one aspect of this unity in worship is a common confession of the Christian faith expressed regularly. A dynamic community life typified by self-sacrifice and service is another unifying factor, with an important outcome: “Nonbelievers who are unfamiliar with the variety of denominations have difficulty in understanding how different groups, all claiming to be the true church of Jesus Christ, can hurl vitriol at one another. But they are moved by Christians serving together in community.”[30] Furthermore, the fellowship and connectedness that are sensed by believers crossing into different cultures and meeting Christians from different nationalities, ethnicities, linguistic groups, socioeconomic status, political systems, educational levels, and religious backgrounds, point toward another factor enhancing unity: membership in the universal body of Christ. But the proper perspective on this unity is required, as P. T. Forsyth explains:

The unity of the Church rests on a basis not subjective but objective. It does not stand on Christian sympathies and affinities but on divine deed and purpose. It rests upon God’s grace and Gospel, not on fraternal love—which God will see to if we see to His grace. Our love of each other is the effect and expression of our love of Him who gave Himself for us. This is in opposition to the modern desire for fellowship, comradeship, and brotherhood as the direct constituent of a Church. Of course there is no true Church without fellowship and brotherhood, but it is not on that that it rests, but on the Redemption, the new creation. Fellowship is a fruit and not a root.[31]

Maintaining Church Unity

Working to maintain the unity of the Spirit that is fostered by these commonalities requires diligent effort. Several essential attitudes and actions developed and expressed by the church contribute to the preservation of its unity. Prior to his urging the church to strive diligently to maintain unity, Paul lists several requisite attitudes for its achievement: humility and gentleness, patience, and bearing with one another in love (Eph. 4:2). Humility entails a proper assessment of oneself—not an overestimation (Rom. 12:3) prompted by pride and conceit, nor an underestimation tragically promoted by a false Christian humility—together with a yielding of one’s personal rights for the sake of others (e.g., 1 Cor. 9:3–18). Jesus is the perfect example of this virtue (Phil. 2:5–11); indeed, his model is the basis for the biblical command, “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others” (vv. 3–4). Humility promotes oneness among church members. Gentleness is a meekness of disposition that eschews combativeness; with a leading cause of divisiveness set aside, church unity is maintained by this virtue. Patience, or steadfastness in the face of difficulty, holds opposing people together and enables them to work through issues that would otherwise divide them. Bearing with one another in love means that church members who are provoked by one another’s shortcomings and idiosyncrasies exercise self-control to repair, maintain, and strengthen their relationship. All of these virtues promote church unity.

In addition, eagerness to maintain church unity is needed (Eph. 4:3). Ferguson calls this characteristic “the one attitude of a unified faith.” Referring to 1 Corinthians 1:10, he urges, “There needs to be a will to unity. . . . Where the will to unity is absent or weak, nearly anything can be divisive. Where the will to unity is strong, even major disagreements can be resolved or handled in such a way as to avoid division.”[32] As the church is characterized by a fervent keenness to maintain unity, major obstacles to its preservation may be overcome.

Church unity is further encouraged by an emphasis on the sufficiency of Scripture and on treasuring the distinction between essential and nonessential matters. Grudem defines the sufficiency of Scripture: “The sufficiency of Scripture means that Scripture . . . contains all the words of God we need for salvation, for trusting him perfectly, and for obeying him perfectly.”[33] Application of this attribute of Scripture means that the church will focus on Scripture, not add mere human opinion and/or its own traditions to Scripture, not require its members to believe anything that is not propounded explicitly or implicitly for belief in Scripture, not forbid anything that is not forbidden explicitly or implicitly in Scripture, and not require anything that is not commanded either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.[34] Far too often, church unity is disturbed by the imposition of beliefs, rules, practices, and standards that find no support in Scripture. Thus, for the promotion of church unity, “the scripture sufficiency must be maintained, and nothing beyond it imposed on others.”[35]

Emphasizing what Scripture emphasizes—another application of the sufficiency of Scripture[36]—means that the church must distinguish between essential and nonessential matters so as to maintain its unity. Calvin addressed this issue:

What is more, some fault may creep into the administration of either doctrine or sacraments, but this ought not to estrange us from communion with the church. For not all the articles of true doctrine are of the same sort. Some are so necessary to know that they should be certain and unquestioned by all men as the proper principles of religion. Such are: God is one; Christ is God and the Son of God; our salvation rests in God’s mercy; and the like. Among the churches there are other articles of doctrine disputed which still do not break the unity of the faith. . . . [A] difference of opinion over these nonessential matters should in no wise be the basis of schism among Christians.[37]

Just what constitutes essential matters for a church, and what constitutes nonessential matters, is a determination that the church—especially its leadership—must make. Though some churches may claim that this task is too difficult, much help is forthcoming. As already noted, a study of what Scripture emphasizes goes a long way toward determining essential matters. Also, what the church has historically considered to be of utmost importance points in the direction of essentiality. A study of the historic creeds—the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the Apostles’ Creed, the Chalcedonian Creed, the Athanasian Creed—will direct the church to focus on essential matters: the triune nature of God and his creation of all that exists; the full humanity and full deity of Jesus Christ; the two natures–one person formula (the hypostatic union); the incarnation by means of the virgin birth and the Holy Spirit; the death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and future return of Christ; the full deity and divine works of the Holy Spirit; the church; baptism; the future resurrection and eternal life.[38]

To these essential matters Protestants add the great doctrines of the Reformation: the canon, clarity, sufficiency, necessity, ultimate authority, and proper interpretation of Scripture; the total depravity of human beings and thus their total inability to please God; salvation accomplished by Christ alone and applied by grace alone through faith alone; the proper distinction between and relationship of justification, regeneration, and sanctification; the priesthood of all believers; the reality of true churches existing outside of the Catholic Church; two instead of seven sacraments (or ordinances); church discipline; and personal eschatology that does not include purgatory.[39] Building on the Protestant theological heritage, evangelicals hold to other essential matters: the duty incumbent on the church to preach the gospel and engage missionally so as to make disciples throughout the entire world; a repudiation of liberal theology; and a Christ-centered, kingdom-contributing engagement of the culture at large. Specific churches and denominations have their own particular help in determining essential matters, as these are inscribed in their confessions or statements of faith: the Augsburg Confession and the Formula of Concord (Lutheran); the Thirty-nine Articles (Anglican/Episcopal), the Westminster Confession of Faith (Presbyterian), the Baptist Faith and Message (Southern Baptist), just to note a few. And evangelical scholars offer important statements—“The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,” “The Chicago Statement on Hermeneutics,” “The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration”—for further assistance to evangelical churches.[40]

Making the distinction between essential and nonessential matters and then emphasizing the former while minimizing—even being willing to compromise on—the latter will help the church maintain its unity. As Richard Baxter noted, “We must learn to difference well between certainties and uncertainties, necessaries and unnecessaries, catholic [i.e., universally held] verities—quae ab omnibus, ubique et semper sun retentae [“that (faith which has been believed) by everyone, everywhere, and always”[41]]—and private opinions; and to lay the stress of the Church’s peace upon the former and not upon the latter.”[42] Not only will such an emphasis keep the church’s common focus on what is most important; it will also minimize attention on personal scruples and preferences, the prominence of which often leads to quarreling, despising, and passing judgment (Rom. 14:1–12)—all of which commonly results in disunity.

Finally, unity is maintained by promoting an eschatological orientation in the church. At the end of this present age, when Christ returns for the consummation of the divine plan, that vision will be totally realized. As noted above, that eternal purpose features the church having fully attained to “the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13); that is, the church will be fully conformed in all ways to the image of Christ, being his perfect bride. Moreover, the church will have taken its place in the divine “plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth” (Eph. 1:10); that is, the fully united church’s certain future is to join all the rest of the created order and be united in Christ. With this as its destiny, the church cannot tolerate quarreling, combativeness, personal opinions, the passing of judgment, and any other divisive attitude or action to frustrate the perfect unity that is sure to come.[43]

My focus thus far has been on the unity of the church intended as the local church. This assembly of Christ-followers is the primary thrust of biblical appeals to and instructions about unity.[44] However, unity may be properly pursued and enjoyed at levels higher than that of the local church; indeed, such pursuit of unity would go a long way toward overcoming the “seemingly fatal contradiction between the Christ as the one Savior and Lord whom Christians confess and the fractured multiplicity of the churches in which they do so.”[45] Cooperative endeavors between like-minded churches—praying for one another during the worship service, evangelizing a particular neighborhood or town, supporting an evangelistic crusade in the city, pooling resources for a church plant in a neighboring community, funding and serving a soup kitchen or homeless shelter—express the unity of the church on a broader geographical level.[46] Local churches of the same denomination may work together through presbyteries, synods, or other regional and state associations or conventions to support missional endeavors, church planting efforts targeted at specific ethnic groups, and campus ministries. The highest yet most remote stage of cooperation is at the national convention, general assembly, or global conference level at which representatives from lower level assemblies meet to discuss issues that all churches face, and where they make binding or nonbinding decisions for the entire denomination or worldwide communion.[47]

In summary, the actualization of the biblical vision—the growth of the church—involves both purity and unity, understood in a positional sense, purposive sense, and instrumental sense. Thus, affirming the purity and unity of the church means affirming that the church, which is holy and one, is directed at and directs itself toward perfect holiness and oneness and pursues this end by means of increase in purity and maintenance of unity.

___________________

[1]Edmund P. Clowney, The Church: Sacraments, Worship, Ministry, Mission, Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 64–65.

[2]This matter of separation is a delicate one and patient of misunderstanding. Andrew Chester offers a wise perspective: “In 1 Cor 5.9–10, Paul makes it absolutely clear that the community cannot expect to live in splendid isolation from the corrupt and immoral society around. . . . Instead, it is those who live in an immoral way who must be refused admission to the community, or ejected if they already belong. 2 Cor 6.14–18; 7:1 appears to present a different vision to that of 1 Cor 5.9–10 . . . but in fact the main emphasis here is completely consistent with what Paul says otherwise. That is, there should be an absolute difference between the community . . . and the world around, and as a Christian community it should show itself to be completely pure and holy. In the rhetorical stress that he places on this point, Paul does indeed come close to saying that believers should have nothing at all to do with unbelievers. The reality he recognizes, however, is clear from 1 Corinthians: the community does not exist as a compact, physically separate entity, day in, day out, and there is no way in which individual members should avoid all contact with individuals and society around, even if Paul wanted them to. His vision instead is that they should shine in the darkness, and show clearly at all times the absolute difference between themselves and secular society” (Andrew Chester, “The Pauline Communities,” in A Vision for the Church: Studies in Early Christian Ecclesiology in Honour of J. P. M. Sweet, ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Michael B. Thompson [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997], 109–110).

[3]For a well reasoned perspective on why such freedom from the world is not the ultimate vocation of Christians and the church, see Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, 4.3.2, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance, 14 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010), 554–614.

[4]Bockmuehl calls attention to the corporate, ecclesial emphasis of the writer to the Hebrews (Markus Bockmuehl, “The Church in Hebrews,” in Vision for the Church, 140–143).

[5]Richard J. Foster, Celebration of Discipline: The Path to Spiritual Growth, 3rd ed. (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1988); John Ortberg, The Life You’ve Always Wanted: Spiritual Disciplines for Ordinary People (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997); Dallas Willard, The Spirit of the Disciplines: Understanding How God Changes Lives (New York: HarperCollins, 1991; idem, Renovation of the Heart: Putting On the Character of Christ (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2002); Donald Whitney, Spiritual Disciplines within the Church: Participating Fully in the Body of Christ (Chicago: Moody, 1996).

[6]John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 4.1.17.

[7]Geoffrey Wainwright, Doxology: The Praise of God in Worship, Doctrine, and Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), 129–130.

[8]Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 874.

[9]Ibid., 873; chart copyright © 1994 by Wayne Grudem. Used by permission of Zondervan.

[10]Ibid., 874.

[11]John Calvin reserves some harsh words for such churches (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.1.13–16).

[12]Grudem, Systematic Theology, 874–875.

[13]Ibid., 881.

[14]They may have been encouraged to think of the church as existing to meet their own personal needs. As George Barna urges, “Think of your church not as a religious meeting place, but as a service agency—an entity that exists to satisfy people’s needs” (George Barna, Marketing the Church [Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1988], 37). Denunciation of this type of consumer mentality is made by Paul Louis Metzger, Consuming Jesus: Beyond Race and Class Divisions in a Consumer Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007); and by Brad Harper and Paul Metzger, Exploring Ecclesiology: An Evangelical and Ecumenical Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2009).

[15]LifeWay Research, “Top 10 Reasons for Leaving Previous Church among American Protestants” (2006). Available at www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=25329.

[16]Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.1.10.

[17]Respondents to these questions must be able to distinguish between essential and nonessential matters. I will treat this matter in the next section, on the unity of the church.

[18]For members who also serve in positions of leadership in a church, an additional question should be posed: has God released me from my current responsibilities in the church so that I am free to leave?

[19]Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday/Image Books, 1995), 813. I would revise the opening affirmation to read “one God, the Father and the Son and [rather than in] the Holy Spirit.”

[20]Paul seems to underscore this point with the adversative δέ (de) in 1 Corinthians 12:4. As Carson summarizes the flow of Paul’s argument from v. 3 to v. 4, “I want you to know that all who truly confess Jesus as Lord do so by the Holy Spirit, and thus attest his presence in their lives; but that does not mean there are no distinctions to be made among them” (D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12–14 [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1987], 31).

[21]Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 407. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church adds, “From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God’s gifts and the diversity of those who receive them. Within the unity of the People of God, a multiplicity of peoples and cultures is gathered together. Among the Church’s members, there are different gifts, offices, conditions, and ways of life” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 814).

[22]David L. Smith, All God’s People: A Theology of the Church (Wheaton, IL: Victor/BridgePoint, 1996), 394.

[23]As Smith offers, “the Bible is unequivocal in its stress on Christian unity” (ibid., 396).

[24]Tragically, however, such disunity is rampant, and such factionalism is often originated and fostered by church leaders or, at the minimum, is not addressed and halted by them. Speaking of these leaders, Richard Baxter observed that many “are sadly guilty of . . . undervaluing the unity and peace of the whole church. Though I scarce ever meet with any that will not speak for the unity and peace, or at least that will expressly speak against it, yet is it not common to meet with those that are addicted to promote it; but too commonly do we find men averse to it, and jealous of it, if not themselves the instrument of division” (Richard Baxter, The Reformed Pastor, rev. ed. [London: Epworth, 1950], 100).

[25]Ferguson, Church of Christ, 406.

[26]Ibid., 402.

[27]Ibid.

[28]Almost all commentators agree that Paul’s reference is to baptism with water, not baptism with the Holy Spirit (though the two are closely associated in salvation, as evidenced by the conversion of Paul; Acts 9:17–19; 22:16) (Robert H. Stein, “Baptism and Becoming a Christian in the New Testament,” SBJT 2 (1998): 6–17). Furthermore, the reference is not merely metaphorical (F. F. Bruce, Commentary on Galatians, NIGTC [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982], 185–186; Thomas C. Schreiner, “Galatians,” ZECNT [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010], 256–257).

[29]Ferguson, Church of Christ, 403–404.

[30]Smith, All God’s People, 396; cf. Baxter, Reformed Pastor, 148–149.

[31]P. T. Forsyth, The Church, the Gospel, and Society (London: Independent Press, 1962), 60.

[32]Ferguson, Church of Christ, 404–405. This eagerness reminds me of the practice of a former church with regard to people leaving it. When it came to the leadership’s attention that people had stopped attending our church, we would ask for an opportunity to meet with them and discuss what had prompted them to leave. More often than not, a simple discussion of their complaints, together with a plan for how the church could rectify the situation or relationship provoking the problem, resulted in people staying at the church. In the words of Steve Keels, this “pursuing love” refuses to let people go and often succeeds in maintaining church unity.

[33]Grudem, Systematic Theology, 127.

[34]Ibid., 131–134.

[35]Baxter, Reformed Pastor, 141.

[36]Grudem, Systematic Theology, 134–135.

[37]Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.1.12.

[38]Though not addressed in these early creeds, the Lord’s Supper should be included in this list.

[39]The Anabaptist/Baptist wing further emphasizes the importance of regenerate church membership; baptism of believers by means of immersion in water; soul competency; congregational church polity; and the separation of church and state (the last two items are specifically motivated by a baptistic view of the lordship of Jesus Christ). These elements will be added to the list of essential matters in baptistic churches.

[40]The inerrancy statement is available at http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html. The hermeneutics statement is available at http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html. The gospel statement is available at http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/gospel-jesus-christ-evangelical-celebration/.

[41]“Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus” (“that [faith which has been believed] everywhere, always, by all”) is the “canon” of Vincent of Lerins as written in his Commonitory 2.6 (NPNF^2 11:132).

[42]Baxter, Reformed Pastor, 141.

[43]Interestingly, when combined with the missional attribute of the church, this eschatological orientation actually translates into church “division”: the missional church is intentional in preparing itself to send out (some of) its members for the specific purpose of starting other churches locally, regionally, and globally. This intentionality differs from the need of some churches to split off or initiate new sites due to extensive growth such that the membership outgrows its current building. If this growth is due to the blessing of God, expansion of church facilities to accommodate the expanding congregation is both good and necessary. But the intentionality of which I speak is that of purposing to prepare, commission, and launch (some of) its members to plant other churches. According to J. Rodman Williams, “To be sure, if it is for the purpose of multiplication, division is good—as in the case of cell division, in which true growth occurs” (J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology: Systematic Theology from a Charismatic Perspective, 3 vols. in 1 [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996], 3:27).

[44]Even within the local assembly, different levels of unity may be expected among different groups of members. For example, one level of unity—the most general—may be required for membership in the church, while another, more specific level of unity may be required for those serving in the church, while yet a third level of unity—the most specific and detailed—may be required at the professional/staff level in the church. For example, membership in a church expects agreement with the church’s statement of faith (which is quite general and does not specify its position on the next two points), participation as a Sunday school teacher requires a broadly Calvinist/Reformed theological commitment or Arminian/Wesleyan theological commitment, and leadership responsibilities as a staff member of the church demand conformity with the continuationist or cessationist position of the church.

[45]Markus Bockmuehl, “Is There a New Testament Doctrine of the Church?” in Scripture’s Doctrine and Theology’s Bible: How the New Testament Shapes Christian Dogmatics, ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Alan J. Torrance (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 30.

[46]The ideal of local church cooperation may be wounded by conflicts between churches. These hostilities may be the result of petty jealousies or feelings of competition for members. Alternatively, they may be the residual effects of a church split: the two (or more) churches that have resulted from the split harbor bitterness and resentment toward each other and refuse to cooperate. If this situation persists for a long time, the original reason for the split is usually forgotten; still, the churches are unfriendly and uncooperative. The biblical injunctions concerning asking for and extending forgiveness, though directed at individual Christians, certainly apply in some way to churches that have experienced a rupture in relationship. Wise leaders from these churches should take the initiative to find a way to resolve the conflict and bring reconciliation. Perhaps other local churches that are aware of the division could intervene and offer their help in resolving the conflict.

[47]Mention should be made of ecumenical efforts at church unity like the World Council of Churches. Such organizations are trans-denominational efforts to achieve some level of church unity despite enormous differences between member entities. An example of consensus reached among very disparate churches and denominations is the document Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry, Faith and Order Paper 111 (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1982). Historically, evangelicals have been suspicious and critical of such ecumenical efforts; therefore, I make only a brief mention of this attempt at church unity. But cooperation among evangelicals is encouraged by such entities as the National Association of Evangelicals (for churches and denominations) and the Evangelical Theological Society (for theologians, biblical scholars, church historians, Christian philosophers, missiologists, scholars in other disciplines, pastors, and evangelical students).

CHAPTER

SIX

CHURCH DISCIPLINE

In a startling statement that, if true, should sober contemporary evangelical churches, R. Albert Mohler Jr. opined that “the decline of church discipline is perhaps the most visible failure of the contemporary church. No longer concerned with maintaining purity of confession or lifestyle, the contemporary church sees itself as a voluntary association of autonomous members, with minimal moral accountability to God, much less to each other.” He then warns, “without a recovery of functional church discipline . . . the church will continue its slide into moral dissolution and relativism”[1] The reasons Mohler offered for this serious decline include Christianity’s creeping accommodation to American culture, including a culture of moral individualism; claims to autonomy and personal privacy; narcissistic hedonism; and absolute relativism.[2] What is disturbing about his statement is that, if it proves to be true, evangelical churches will take on more and more of the unholy characteristics just articulated. What is more, to reverse the trend so as to avoid this nightmarish scenario, the effort required will be so monumental and controversial that it will cost churches much time to teach on and reinstitute the practice of church discipline, great effort to apply the recovered practice in the lives of persistently sinning church members, deep repentance on the part of those members and compassionate mercy from churches toward those members, and strong leadership to withstand congregational criticism for the restoration of the practice. Both scenarios are daunting.

Though largely overlooked and cavalierly dismissed today as a prehistoric remnant, church discipline was fervently and extensively practiced in the past. In the first few centuries of Christianity, before people could be baptized and join the church, as catechumens preparing for that entrance event their lives were scrutinized carefully. As Hippolytus in the Apostolic Traditions instructed, “When they are chosen who are to receive baptism, let their lives be examined, whether they had lived honorably while catechumens, whether they honored the widows, whether they visited the sick, and whether they have done every good work”[3] Even the means of their livelihood were tested, and some catechumens were required to leave their professions before they could be baptized. Specifically, painters and sculptors (of idols), actors, school teachers (of worldly knowledge), participants in Roman circuses (charioteers, athletes, spectators), gladiators or those associated with the profession, idolatrous priests, soldiers and others in the military, pimps, prostitutes, magicians, concubines, and others engaged in similar professions of ill-repute first had to quit their jobs and then they could become Christians.[4] Clearly, discipline in the early church was common, widespread, specific, and highly legislated.[5]

At the time of the Reformation, church discipline played an important role in Protestant churches. Martin Luther considered the exercise of church discipline to be one of the seven marks of the true church. Turning to Jesus’ instructions about church discipline (Matt. 18:15–20), he stated: “Fourth, God’s people, or holy Christians, are recognized by the office of the keys exercised publicly. That is, as Christ decrees in Matthew, if a Christian sins, he should be reproved. If he does not mend his ways, he should be bound in his sin and cast out. If he does mend his ways, he should be absolved. That is the office of the keys.” Luther called for careful and proper use of church discipline, depending on the tender conscience or stubborn heart of the sinning believer. He also blasted the misuse of the keys by the pope. For Luther, the true church exercises discipline rightly in order to bring back fallen sinners.[6]

Though John Calvin did not consider the exercise of church discipline to be a mark of the true church, he dedicated considerable discussion to it. As noted in the preceding chapter, he was particularly incensed by so-called Christians who left the church.[7] Church discipline was a hallmark of the churches in Calvin’s Geneva, as the pastors and elders met together weekly on Thursdays to undertake its exercise.[8] Following Calvin, some Reformed statements of faith—e.g., the Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Church[9]—continued to list two marks of the church (the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments), while others—e.g., the Belgic Confession of Faith and the Scottish Confession of Faith—expanded the list to include the third mark of church discipline.[10]

This rich legacy of church discipline continued to be honored in many churches until the beginning of the twentieth century. Greg Wills notes that a serious decline in its practice set in around that time, a decline from which evangelical churches continue to suffer.[11] I now turn to the nature of church discipline and the recovery of its exercise. This discussion is located among the chapters on the growth of the church because church discipline serves to protect the actualization of the biblical vision for the church.

DEFINITION AND ITS BIBLICAL SUPPORT

Church discipline may be defined as a proleptic (or anticipatory) and declarative sign of the divine eschatological judgment, meted out by Jesus Christ through the church against its sinful members and sinful situations.[12] As a proleptic sign, church discipline forecasts in part and in the present age the anticipated eschatological judgment to take place in full in the age to come; thus, it is a harbinger foreshadowing things to come. As a declarative sign, such discipline is the church’s pronouncement of judgment against its sinful members and sinful situations and is intended to reflect the divine judgment, but it is not an infallible pronouncement. When the church in accordance with the Word of God exercises discipline, it comes with divine sanction; but the church, still a sinful assembly in the midst of sinful reality, may not get its discipline right. The definitive announcement of divine judgment belongs to Jesus Christ alone who, at his return, will make an infallible pronouncement. In anticipation of that verdict, the church exercises discipline against its sinful members and sinful situations.[13]

We are accustomed to thinking of the divine judgment as a future reality associated with the return of Christ, and there is good biblical warrant for such an expectation: God the Father has granted all judgment to the Son (John 5:22, 27). At his return, therefore, Jesus Christ will resurrect unto eternal life “those who have done good,” and he will resurrect unto judgment “those who have done evil” (v. 29).[14] As for the future judgment of Christ-followers, Paul specifies that “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil” (2 Cor. 5:10). Christians have no dread of hearing a sentence of condemnation, for that penalty has been paid by the perfectly righteous God-man through his substitutionary death on the cross and the verdict of justification rendered on their behalf when they embrace the gospel (Rom. 8:1). But Christ-followers are to live circumspectly in light of this gracious work and in anticipation of the future evaluation of their lives. For those who have engaged in good works, there is great reward; for those who have done evil, there is at the minimum the loss of potential reward. The expectation is that those who have been redeemed by Jesus Christ will live sanctified, Christlike lives as they pursue “holiness, without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14). Failure on the part of Christ-followers to do so should lead to their being disciplined by the church as a proleptic and declarative sign of the divine eschatological judgment.[15]

Biblical support for this notion is summarized here and explored in more detail in the following sections. That church discipline is carried out in relation to the eschatological judgment of Christ finds support in Paul’s demand that the Corinthian church take action against one of its sinful members (1 Cor. 5:1–13). The excommunication for which the apostle calls is to be carried out by the church with this purpose or goal: “so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” (v. 5). This member’s situation was so dire that, should he persist in his sin, a dreadful future awaited him on the day of judgment. Should church discipline succeed, however, and he repent of his sin, the eschatological verdict would be favorable for him. Thus, church discipline is exercised in the present yet is done in relation to the divine eschatological judgment.

Furthermore, Jesus’ instructions on this matter (Matt. 18:15–20) underscore a similar association of church discipline with the divine judgment. At the last stage of the disciplinary process, when the church excommunicates an unrepentant member, that action of “binding” the member in sin and under discipline has already occurred in heaven (v. 18); thus, the church’s verdict confirms a preceding divine denunciation. In the opposite case, when the sinful member repents, the church’s action of “loosing” or forgiving that member has already occurred in heaven (v. 18); again, the church’s verdict confirms a preceding divine absolution. The implication of Jesus’ instructions is that, in the case of unrepentance, divine disapproval, as reflected in the church’s excommunication of the unrepentant member, awaits that member in the eschatological judgment. In the case of repentance, however, divine censure has been removed and divine favor, as reflected in the church’s pronouncement of forgiveness of the repentant member, awaits that member in the eschatological judgment.

The judicial atmosphere that serves as the framework for these two biblical presentations of church discipline further supports my notion. Returning to Paul’s discussion (1 Cor. 5:1–13), the apostle describes a somber courtroom scene in which the church’s discipline of its erring member is to take place: Paul, as the apostolic authority who has properly rendered judgment against the sinful member, promises to be present in spirit (vv. 3, 4). The Corinthians are to be “assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus” (v. 4); that this convocation is to meet in the name of the Lord underscores the seriousness of what is to transpire in the meeting. The proviso “with the power of our Lord Jesus” (v. 4) adds further weightiness to the proceeding.[16] The church’s exercise of discipline is a serious judicial matter. A similar framework is presented in Jesus’ instructions (Matt. 18:15–20), specifically in two areas: first, the requirement in the second stage of the process for witnesses to provide evidence for the charge against an unrepentant member (v. 16); second, Jesus’ promise of the divine approbation of the disciplinary action “if two of you agree on earth about anything” (v. 19)—literally, “about any judicial matter.”[17] In both passages, the judicial atmosphere in which church discipline is carried out can be readily seen as anticipating the somberness of the eschatological judgment.

Finally, the nature of the pronouncement made by the church—even a verdict rendered according to these biblical instructions and supported by the promise of Christ—is not, indeed, cannot be, infallible. While the church possesses authority to exercise discipline, its authority is nonetheless and always a delegated authority: it comes from Christ to his church. Only his judgment is perfect and true; only his eschatological judgment will be definitive. Indeed, because the church in this present age is still a sinful assembly in the midst of sinful reality, it may not get its discipline right. As it exercises discipline, the church makes a declaration, not a definitive pronouncement.

Accordingly, church discipline is a proleptic (or anticipatory) and declarative sign of the divine eschatological judgment, meted out by Jesus Christ through the church against its sinful members and sinful situations. I turn now to a discussion of two key biblical texts concerning church discipline.

TWO KEY TEXTS AND THEIR APPLICATION TO CHURCH DISCIPLINE

Matthew 18:15–20

That Jesus Christ delegates divine authority to the church to exercise discipline is borne out in his own instructions on the matter:

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again, I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them. (Matt. 18:15–20)

In this passage, the event that sets the process of church discipline into motion is the sin of a Christian against another Christian.[18] This sin prompts the first step in the disciplinary process, which is a personal, private conversation between the two parties, the offended person expressing verbally the offending person’s fault.[19] The desired outcome is that the offending Christian will confess the sin and repent of it. In such case, the matter is over; the two Christians have been reconciled (Matt. 18:15).

The other possible outcome is that the offending party does not give heed to the initiative taken by the offended person. This event prompts the second step in the disciplinary process, which is a confrontation between the two parties along with one or two witnesses brought into the conversation by the offended party. While some believe that these additional participants must be eyewitnesses of the original offense between the two Christians, this does not seem likely. Jesus does not specify that they be “eyewitnesses,” only that they be “witnesses.”[20] Furthermore, it raises the question of what to do in the case in which there are no witnesses to the dispute. Finally, that interpretation fails to note carefully the primary purpose of the witnesses: to establish the charge of the offended party against the offending party (Matt. 18:16). A testimony may be rendered by “two or three witnesses”—the offended party along with the one or two witnesses brought into the process—that the person who stands accused was properly confronted by the offended party and yet refuses to confess sin and repent.[21] At this point a secondary purpose for the other participant(s) is introduced: the witness(es) join(s) the offended party in confronting the offending person and calling for confession and repentance (v. 17). Refusal to heed these people results in taking the process to the next stage.

The refusal of the offending Christian to listen to the two or three Christians prompts the third step in the disciplinary process, which is an announcement of the entrenched situation to the church. The members are made aware of the initial sin that provoked the desperate situation as well as the failure of the first two stages in the disciplinary process to produce the desired outcome. Involving themselves in the matter, the members confront the offending party and plead for confession of sin and repentance. This is the desired outcome implied in Jesus’ instructions. In such case, the matter is over; the two Christians have been reconciled.

The refusal of the offending Christian to pay heed to the church—the scenario addressed in Jesus’ instructions—prompts the fourth and final step in the disciplinary process, which is commonly called excommunication: the church treats the offending party “as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matt. 18:17).[22] This action entails removing the offending party from church membership and cutting off all normal conversation and involvement with that person.

Such extraordinary measures can be undertaken only with the assurance of divine approval, and Jesus promises this approbation as he continues his instructions about church discipline. The binding or loosing refers to the retention or forgiveness of the entrenched sin that has been the focus of the disciplinary process:[23] excommunication on the part of the church signals that the offending party is still bound in sin and under church discipline. But when confession and repentance prevail and the situation is righted, the church affirms forgiveness for the entrenched sin and release from church discipline; the matter is concluded. Indeed, Jesus indicates that when the church excommunicates someone, that action of binding the offending person in sin and under church discipline has already taken place in heaven; the church ratifies a preceding divine denunciation. Likewise, when the church pronounces forgiveness of someone, that action of loosing the repentant person from sin and releasing from church discipline has already taken place in heaven; the church ratifies a preceding divine absolution (v. 18).

The church benefits not only from the divine sanction as it engages in church discipline but also from answered prayer and from the presence of Jesus Christ himself. Anyone who has exercised church discipline knows of the intense effort, the painful confrontation, the personal cost, and the struggle to know how to proceed properly that accompanies this work. The promise to the church that its unified prayers seeking God’s will and his guidance for each step of the process will be heard and answered, encourages the church to proceed despite the many difficulties it is sure to encounter (Matt. 18:19). The promise that Jesus himself will be with the church in this complicated, wearying work is reassuring and energizing (v. 20).[24]

Several key points emerge from this discussion of Jesus’ teaching on church discipline. Implied in these clear and specific instructions is the fact that Jesus Christ delegates divine authority to the church to exercise discipline. On the one hand, this means that the church does not possess absolute authority in this (or, in fact, any other) matter; that is why church discipline is a declarative sign and not a definitive pronouncement of divine judgment. On the other hand, this means that church discipline is not an optional matter; the church may not decide not to exercise discipline. Though it is time intensive, upsetting, messy, and hard—and, certainly, care must be exercised throughout the process with constant reference to the Word of God, prayer, seeking the Holy Spirit’s guidance, and the like—discipline must be exercised by the church against its sinful members and sinful situations. New churches should incorporate this element from the very beginning. A helpful way to do so is to include in the church’s covenant a statement about church discipline to which all members agree. Established churches should recover this element. Instructing the leadership about church discipline is a good first step, to be followed by sermons on the topic that expound key passages and set forth the nature, process, and application of church discipline. Then, when actual cases demanding the exercise of discipline present themselves, the church is ready to confront them within a biblical framework.[25]

Additionally, church discipline is to be undertaken with the goal that the offending Christian will acknowledge sin, confess it, and repent so that reconciliation will be effected. Simply put, restoration is the intended purpose of church discipline. Other reasons for it exist as well, but the aim toward which the church must exercise its discipline is restoration of the sinful member. Tragically, in far too many cases, churches exercise discipline to remove unwanted members or for the purpose of revenge. Such wrongly targeted disciplinary actions must be repudiated and halted. Restoration of the sinful member is the goal of church discipline.

To accomplish this end, a four-step process is prescribed and must be followed. With all the possible pitfalls that attend the exercise of church discipline, it behooves the church to follow carefully Jesus’ clear instructions for it. In the midst of the process, care should be taken to maintain strict confidentiality. After the failure of the first step, the offended party must engage one or two other witnesses, not the entire church. Prudence and wisdom suggest that at least one of those witnesses should be a part of the church leadership. Pastoral involvement at this second stage is in keeping with the responsibilities of elders and can go a long way to ensure that, if the final two stages in the process are needed, the church leadership can properly bring the matter before the entire congregation. Though the third and fourth steps are collapsed into one stage by many churches that exercise discipline, Jesus’ instructions indicate that the church should have an opportunity to confront its sinful members and plead for confession and repentance before it makes the decision to excommunicate them.

As for how the last two stages should be undertaken, I suggest the following steps: first, a general letter is sent to all the members of the church announcing a congregational meeting at which their presence is strongly urged. In order to maintain confidentiality, this letter should not give the purpose for the meeting or include any details about the matter to be discussed. As the meeting is called to order, a reminder is given that it is for members only and all non-members are asked to leave; then, the purpose of the meeting is announced. If the church is not accustomed to exercising discipline, biblical instruction is given. Then, one of the pastors/elders who has been involved in the process states generally the nature of the sin that provoked the disciplinary process in the first place. Sufficient details are provided so that the congregation understands the seriousness of the situation, but the prurient details that can stir up vain imaginations and stimulate sin among the members are withheld. The elder also explains the failure of the first two steps to obtain the desired outcome, and then calls upon the church to admonish and rebuke the erring member, instructing how this should be done. After a sufficient period of time, if confession of sin and repentance are not forthcoming, another congregational meeting is convened at which the elders update the members on the lack of progress and call for them to excommunicate the sinful person. Details about what this action entails—removing the offending party from church membership (this includes removal from any and all involvement in church leadership and ministry), forbidding participation in the Lord’s Supper, and cutting off all normal conversation and involvement with that person—are explained. Once the church undertakes the action to excommunicate, a pastor should warn the congregation not to travel the pathway of sin but to pursue holiness. Finally, the erring person is informed of the church’s excommunication.

The length of this disciplinary process is a matter for prayer and divine wisdom for those responsible for the process. In one sense, haste is demanded when it becomes sufficiently apparent that confession and repentance are not forthcoming; to keep on with the process may be misconstrued as toleration of sin and lack of appropriate spiritual and moral courage. In another sense, however, rushing through the process may cut short the time needed for conviction of sin to motivate confession and repentance. The process must give the erring Christian time to repent.[26]

Throughout this process (assuming it is carried out properly), the church benefits from knowing that it functions with divine sanction as it places unrepentant members under discipline and as it releases repentant members from discipline. In the case of excommunication, the erring believer is bound in sin and retained under the church’s discipline as a harbinger of the divine disfavor already pronounced against that person. In the case of confession and repentance, the remorseful believer is loosed from sin and released from the church’s discipline as a forecast of the divine forgiveness already pronounced in favor of that person. The church enjoys the wonderful promises of the Father answering its prayers and of the presence of the Son during the process (Matt. 18:20). Two corollaries flow from these benefits: Christians should willingly submit to discipline carried out by the church because Christ himself, leading the church to reach its disciplinary conclusion, has already put them under discipline for their sin. In contrast, Christians who have been released from church discipline should rejoice (and fight against wrongful guilty feelings) because Christ himself, leading the church to reach its conclusion, has already released them from discipline for their sin.[27]

1 Corinthians 5:1–13 (with 2 Corinthians 2:5–11)

If the sinning person does not repent, the church must finally excommunicate him, putting him out of the fellowship of the congregation. The purpose for this extraordinary measure, and what happens when the sinful member repents, are the subjects of another biblical passage concerning an actual case of discipline in the early church:

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. (1 Cor. 5:1–7)

In the church at Corinth, one of its members was ensconced in an incestuous relationship; specifically, he was engaged in sexual intercourse with his stepmother. As if this were not evil enough, the Corinthian church had done nothing to put a halt to this sin. In fact, the congregation was rather proud of its tolerant stance toward it.

As we might expect, Paul was of a different persuasion; indeed, he was appalled at the permissive attitude of the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:1–2). As an apostle, Paul had already rendered the judgment of excommunication, and he called for the church to do the same. In an assembly convened under the authority and power of Jesus Christ, the Corinthians were to remove this sinful member from their fellowship. This action would “deliver this man to Satan” by putting him outside of the church and exposing him to the onslaughts of the evil one. The purpose for this radical action was ultimately a good one: to provoke this erring brother to cease and desist from his sexual immorality—the product of his “flesh” or sinful human nature, which would be rendered powerless by this disciplinary action—so that he might ultimately be saved when Jesus Christ the judge returns and pronounces his judgments about eternal life and eternal condemnation (vv. 3–5). But another purpose motivated Paul to enjoin these urgent and radical measures on the Corinthian assembly: removal of the sinful person would prevent the spread of sin throughout the church (vv. 6–7). Apparently, toleration of sin in the congregation results in further sinfulness, just like a small bit of leaven penetrates an entire batch of dough. But this spread of sin can be checked through church discipline, as excommunication removes the sinful member and deters others from following course. As people cleansed from sin and freed from its power—as “unleavened” bread—the Corinthians were to render a radical judgment against their sinful member and exercise discipline by removing him from their midst.

Because talk of such judgment on Paul’s part had been misunderstood in an earlier written correspondence with the Corinthian church,[28] Paul sensed a need to provide a warrant for his current instructions to the congregation. When he had previously warned them “not to associate with sexually immoral people,” the Corinthians had wrongly interpreted his warning to mean that they were to withdraw from non-Christians (1 Cor. 5:9–10). What he had meant—and what he now was attempting to clarify—was that they should not associate with members of the church who profess to be Christ-followers but who do not live as Christ himself lived. The church is to cut off all contact with such sinful members; indeed, they are “not even to eat with such a one” (v. 11). Clearly, the Corinthians had missed Paul’s point: the church is not to judge non-Christians and thus withdraw from all association with them, but it is to judge Christians in its own midst and, if they do not live as genuine Christians are to live, withdraw from all association with them. The matter of the judgment of non-Christians rests with God, not the church. But the matter of the judgment of Christians does rest with the church. This, then, was Paul’s warrant for the extraordinary judgment he called the church in Corinth to make: “Purge the evil person from among you” (vv. 12–13).

Apparently, despite its initial attitude of permissiveness toward the sinful member in its midst, the Corinthian church was galvanized into action by Paul’s admonition and followed his instructions: it excommunicated the incestuous brother. Moreover, this extraordinary measure worked just like the apostle had explained and hoped it would work: the man repented of his sin. This raised the issue of how to proceed with this repentant brother, so Paul addressed this matter in a follow-up letter to the Corinthians:[29]

For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs. (2 Cor. 2:6–11)

Rather than continue to ostracize this repentant brother, the church was to embrace him once again by forgiving and comforting him. To retain the church’s disciplinary action of excommunication—to continue to isolate him from the church—would result in disaster for him. Rather, the church was to reaffirm its love and welcome this man back into its fellowship. As an apostle functioning with divine sanction and the presence of Christ, Paul had forgiven the man, and so he urged the congregation to do the same. Satan’s designs were to outwit the church, which through ignorance of the disciplinary process would continue to enforce its excommunication of the man, thereby keeping him outside of the church and thus continuing to expose him to the onslaughts of Satan. Aware of this diabolical tactic, Paul urged the church to forgive the man and restore him to the fellowship of the church.

Several key points emerge from this case of excommunication and Paul’s instructions to the church of Corinth about how to handle it. Excommunication is a radical measure that involves the transfer of an unrepentant person from the church to the realm of Satanic destruction. The apostle John describes the realm outside of the church as “the whole world [that] lies in the power of the evil one” (1 John 5:19). It is in this evil realm that people live prior to salvation (Eph. 2:1–3), and it is to this realm that excommunicated members are constrained to return through the church’s disciplinary action.[30] Removal from membership in the church involves the loss of divine protection, power, compassion, forgiveness, joy, and comfort—the exhibits of divine grace that are found in the church. Furthermore, it results in the disciplined person’s being exposed to the exact opposite reality: Satanic attack, corruption, temptation, deception, accusation, sorrow, and torment. This transfer from the one to the other realm underscores the seriousness of church discipline and highlights the supportive, beneficial environment of the church.

Paul’s rebuke of the Corinthian church’s indulgent attitude toward the frighteningly sinful situation in its midst should stand as a clear and startling reprimand of the many evangelical churches that have abandoned the practice of discipline. As noted above, many contemporary churches consider the exercise of discipline to be a prehistoric remnant, the product of a bygone church age that was morbidly introspective and overly circumspect as regards pious living. The result is either a cavalier, spineless neglect or an overt, shameless abandonment of the practice—all the while imagining that this enlightened development is healthy for the church. But which of the following seems to reflect more readily Paul’s attitude toward church discipline: the sentiment expressed by John Dagg, that “It has been remarked, that when discipline leaves a church, Christ goes with it,”[31] or the toleration of absenteeism, sexual immorality, lukewarmness, idolatry, arrogance, legalism, doctrinal aberration, racism, political maneuvering, gossip, lack of reconciliation, factionalism, and far too many other sins that are present in the church today?

An important reason for the church to exercise discipline against its sinful members is for the ultimate benefit of those who are so disciplined: through exposure to diabolical onslaughts in the realm of Satan, the excommunicated person is prompted toward self-examination, acknowledgment of his sin and the desperate nature of his current situation, and recognition of the surpassing value of living for and like Christ. Furthermore, the person becomes aware that the issue that keeps him from experiencing his former gracious reality—and the reason he finds himself in this hellish nightmare—is the entrenched sin for which he had been properly confronted by, and ultimately excommunicated from, the church. Enlightened to these truths and convicted of sin, the disciplined member confesses his sin and repents from the evil in which he has been engaged for far too long. This restorative purpose is more detailed than, but stands in continuity with, the purpose for church discipline we saw above in Jesus’ teaching.

Another important reason for church discipline is that it acts as a prophylactic, protecting the church from the spread of sin in its midst. Whether this result comes about because its exercise of discipline removes the example of sin from the church’s midst, underscores the evil of sin, produces conviction of sin and a consequent fear of continuing in sin, demonstrates the seriousness with which the church will stand against sin, and/or some other reason, the church’s action has a prophylactic effect. Grudem addresses a probable result of failure to exercise church discipline: “if discipline against one specific offense is not carried out, then it will be much more difficult for the church to carry out discipline if a similar kind of sin is committed by someone else in the future.”[32] With the lamentable failure of nerve to exercise discipline, is it any wonder why some contemporary evangelical churches are entrenched in widespread sin?

Swift restoration to fellowship in the church is demanded following confession of and repentance from sin. To retain the repentant member under church discipline is to court disaster, because the person continues to be exposed to the onslaughts of the evil one, but now for no good reason. Being cast out into the realm of Satanic destruction has served its purpose to provoke confession and repentance, but no good purpose is served by such continuing exposure to diabolical attacks. Thus, prompt action on the part of the church to hear the excommunicated person’s confession and repentance, to pronounce her forgiven, and to receive her back into its fellowship is of utmost importance. Prudence and wisdom further encourage the church to provide assistance—counseling, one-on-one accountability, discipleship—to the newly restored member to help her avoid a relapse and to strengthen her resolve and more fully equip her to pursue holiness. Likewise, the entire church, which has just been through this arduous process, should redouble its efforts toward greater conformity to Jesus Christ. As William B. Johnson emphasized, “The exclusion of a delinquent by the church should be regarded by both as a solemn and awful measure, having for its object the recovery of the former from his error, and the firmer establishment of the latter in the ways of righteousness.”[33]

What is to be made of the apparent lack of due process in this instance of church discipline (2 Cor. 2:6–11), an absence that contrasts with the fourfold approach affirmed by Jesus in Matthew 18:15–20? Some read Jesus’ instructions into this passage and imagine that Paul’s entreaty to excommunicate the sinful man coincides with the last step in an unstated four-stage process that had already taken place. But Paul’s rebuke of the church’s tolerant attitude toward the incest in its midst makes it highly unlikely that one church member, then two or three members, then all the members had confronted the man and called for confession of and repentance from his sin. The implausibility of this interpretation prompts others toward a different understanding. Because of the public nature of this sin, retracing the earlier, private steps of discipline as set forth by Jesus was not possible nor relevant in this case. Rather, the public exposure of this incestuous relationship called for prompt public attention and excommunication.[34] A second plausible interpretation is that this particular sin was so heinous that it demanded immediate attention and expulsion of the sinful brother; accordingly, the earlier steps of the disciplinary process were skipped. If either of these understandings is correct, then we find here another purpose for church discipline: “to protect the purity of the church and the honor of Christ.”[35] Benjamin Keach addressed this matter under the heading, “Of Scandalous Persons Guilty of Gross Acts of Immorality.” As he explained, “If any Member fall into any gross Acts of Sin . . . and it is known and publickly spread abroad to the great scandal and reproach of Religion, and of the Holy Name of God, his Church, and People,” then church discipline must be enacted. Citing another source on this issue, Keach described how to exercise such discipline: “the Church is to proceed immediately to censure, to vindicate the Honour of Christ and his Church, and to manifest to the World their just Indignation against such Notorious Offenders.”[36] In other words, some sins are so dangerous, in terms of their potential to wreak havoc by corrupting the lives of church members, and so reprehensible, in terms of the blight they bring by degrading the name of Jesus Christ, that members engaged in such sins are to be excommunicated immediately. Such immediacy of action manifests to the society around it the church’s indignation against such sin.

OTHER MATTERS REQUIRING CHURCH DISCIPLINE

Two key passages of Scripture—Matthew 18:15–20 and 1 Corinthians 5:1–13 (with 2 Cor. 2:5–11)—have affirmed much about the nature, process, and application of church discipline. Furthermore, two areas that demand its exercise—personal sin committed by one member against another member of the church, and egregious/public moral failure—have come to light. Scripture addresses still other matters for which church discipline is demanded, and sheds light on other principles involved in its exercise.

Heretical Teaching

Because of the importance of sound doctrine for the church’s very existence and well-being, heretical teaching becomes another sin for which church discipline is to be exercised. The repeated damnamus pronounced by Paul on those who pervert the gospel—“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8–9)[37]—stands as the foundation for the church to take action against any being, human or angelic, that would exchange the gospel for an anti-gospel.

The church’s response in such cases is detailed in several biblical texts. Following Paul’s command to Timothy that he should “charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith” (1 Tim. 1:3–4), the church’s leaders shoulder responsibility to ensure that false teachers are refuted and silenced (cf. Titus 1:9–14). At the same time, elders share this responsibility with the entire church, which is described by Paul as “a pillar and buttress of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) and is commanded by Jude “to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Both the church and its pastors should be alert to the dangers of false teaching in its midst and should act decisively to stamp out such heresy.[38] Additionally, when the church is committed to biblical truth and united in its embrace of orthodoxy, it will not permit false teaching to gain even the slightest foothold, as John urges in his second letter: “Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works” (2 John 9–11). Consistent preaching of the Word of God (2 Tim. 4:1–5) and teaching of sound doctrine (Titus 2:1) create and establish mature Christ-followers and churches, which are then equipped to be vigilant in detecting, repulsing, and silencing false teachers and their corrupt doctrine.[39]

Divisiveness

Turning to another matter demanding church discipline, Paul joins false teachers with provocateurs of division in another warning to the church: “I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive” (Rom. 16:17–18). The church at Corinth was infamous for this sin of factionalism (1 Cor. 1:10–13; 3:1–4), which expressed itself particularly in the church’s (mis)celebration of the Lord’s Supper (11:17–21). According to Paul, some divisions are right and necessary: in the case of people who profess to be Christians but who are not actual Christ-followers, their separation from the church demonstrates those who are and those who are not genuine disciples. The apostle John, like Paul, addresses division in the case of “antichrists”: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us” (1 John 2:18–19). Separation from the church of those who claim to be Christians but who are not is a right and necessary kind of division as it distinguishes genuine disciples from merely religious people.[40] But this was not the situation in the church of Corinth that Paul undertook to correct. The divided church was abusing the Lord’s Supper and, as a result, some of its members were sick and had even prematurely died (1 Cor. 11:30–32). This was a very serious situation of divine discipline, aimed against factionalism in the church.

If church discipline, as I have argued, is a proleptic and declarative sign of the divine eschatological judgment, and if at times Christ himself engages in forthrightly judging the church as a harbinger of his future judgment, then it makes sense that at times the church will be directed to exercise discipline against those who cause divisions in its midst. This is precisely Paul’s point: “As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned” (Titus 3:10–11). Provocateurs of division disrupt the church, stir up controversy, fan tensions, and stimulate conflict. They should be duly noted and avoided, warned to cease and desist from their faction-causing words and actions, and removed from the church if they persist in their divisiveness.

Idleness

Another practice that calls forth church discipline is a persistently wasteful lifestyle. Paul describes it this way:

Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. . . . For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living. (2 Thess. 3:6, 11–12)

Christians are to be models of hard work. Such diligence enables them to earn their own pay, take care of themselves (and their family, if they have one; 1 Tim. 5:8), and to not be a burden to others. Some Christians do not conform to this pattern, living a life of idleness, wasting their wage-earning abilities. Some become “busybodies”; with too much time on their hands, they abuse it by prying into the affairs of others and gossiping (cf. 5:13). The church is to take action by avoiding such members; this includes not helping them with money and other handouts. Furthermore, the church is to admonish these members to secure a job, work quietly, cease meddling, and labor hard to earn a living.

Leadership Failures

Finally, Scripture provides specific instructions for how to treat the particular case of sin among church leaders. Concerning these elders/pastors, Paul explains,

Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality. (1 Tim. 5:19–21)

Paul envisions a case in which an individual brings an accusation against an elder of the church. Because this is a solitary charge against him, the church does not give it consideration. Apparently, this provision is put in place for the pastor’s protection: to prevent him from falling prey to the whims or personal biases of an individual (“a malicious witness”; Deut. 19:16), the church is to ignore an isolated accusation against him. What is required for the charge to be entertained is confirmation by another person or persons. The Deuteronomic standard for what constitutes a legitimate witness undergirds Paul’s point: “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established” (Deut. 19:15). When a charge against an elder is substantiated by multiple witnesses, the church may proceed to investigate the accusation.[41] Even then, the charge is not necessarily true, so due process is required. The accuracy of the accusation and the reliability of the witnesses must be ascertained before a guilty verdict is rendered. When the church establishes the guilt of the elder “who persist[s] in sin,” he is to be brought before the church and rebuked publicly in front of the entire congregation. Though the elders may be leading the process of discipline involving one of their own, they are not allowed to dispose of the matter by themselves. This public rebuke before the church entails some disclosure of the elder’s sin as well as his unwillingness to turn away from it despite admonitions to repent. The specific reason for this extraordinary measure is so that church members will be filled with fear—apparently, fear that the same tragic end awaits them if they persist in sin, or fear that if sin may overtake such a man who is qualified to be an elder, those with less spiritual maturity may fall prey as well.[42] Throughout this entire process of discipline, the church must act fairly and impartially toward the accused elder. This means that he is not to be shown leniency just because he is a church leader, nor is his case to be judged more strictly because of his office. Both preferential treatment and unduly harsh handling of the matter are to be avoided.

In summary, the following are the specific areas addressed in Scripture that require church discipline: personal sin committed by one member against another member of the church; egregious/public moral failure; heretical teaching; divisiveness; idleness; confirmed sin among the church’s leaders. The list does not appear to be exhaustive, however, and Grudem’s call “for mature judgment in the exercise of church discipline, because there is lack of complete sanctification in all our lives”[43] is well taken. As the holiness of its members will never be fully developed during its earthly pilgrimage, the church must be attentive to other areas of sin requiring its intervention. In this regard, Grudem rightly emphasizes that church discipline “will only be effective against true sin . . . as defined by God’s Word.”[44]

THE PRACTICE OF CHURCH DISCIPLINE

More can be said, however. If church discipline is, as I have argued, a proleptic and declarative sign of the divine eschatological judgment, then any sin that Jesus Christ will denounce at his final judgment can potentially be a matter for church discipline. This statement raises the question: how can the church know what sins will be the object of its Judge’s denunciatory future judgment? Grudem’s counsel is that the church determines these sins as they are disclosed in Scripture. For example, Paul describes “the works of the flesh” as “sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these.” He then places these sins in an eschatological framework: “I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:19–21). These works of the flesh, therefore, constitute some of the sins that will be condemned at the future judgment. If I have understood church discipline correctly, any of these sins can potentially be a matter for its exercise. Tragically, the sins that will exclude non-Christians from eternal life in the divine kingdom creep into the church and, becoming persistent, wreak havoc there. The church possesses a potent antidote against this sinful reality, however: it exercises discipline against its members whose lives display a pattern of participation in such fleshly works.[45]

As it proceeds to confront, expose, rebuke, and correct its members who are engaged in true sins that require discipline, the church must follow some explicit rules of engagement: “Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted” (Gal. 6:1). The mature members of the church are to undertake this responsibility gently, with the goal of restoration. The aim is not to destroy life, wreak vengeance, or make an example out the person; the approach and corresponding attitude is not one of harshness, arrogance, or anger. Moreover, because of the subtlety and deceitfulness of sin, those engaged in the disciplinary process are to guard themselves carefully from temptations that can lure and entice them into submitting to the same sin they are seeking to overcome in the other’s life.[46] Moreover, Paul’s instruction appertains to discipline being exercised toward “anyone . . . caught in any transgression”; that is, church discipline would seem to be widespread and quite common.

This makes sense if church discipline is a proleptic and declarative sign of the divine eschatological judgment. No church would desire for any of its members to stand at the future judgment ensnared in even one persistent and evident sin that had brought reproach on the church, provoked other members to engage in sin, and dishonored Jesus Christ. Certainly, many means are available to the church to foster spiritual maturity and holiness in its members—worship, preaching and teaching, dynamic community life, discipleship and mentoring, counseling, accountability groups, and much more. But the church possesses another important yet, tragically, overlooked means—the exercise of discipline. If it will shoulder its biblically enjoined responsibility to confront, expose, rebuke, correct, and even excommunicate (in hope of restoring) its members who are engaged in sins that require discipline, the church will make great strides toward the pursuit of “holiness, without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14).[47]

___________________

[1]R. Albert Mohler Jr., “Church Discipline: The Missing Mark,” Polity: Biblical Arguments on How to Conduct Church Life, ed. Mark E. Dever (Washington, DC: Center for Church Reform, 2005), 43.

[2]Church discipline fails for other reasons: (1) the Protestant state-church relationship that relegated disciplinary action to the state (Martin Jeschke, “How Discipline Died,” Christianity Today [August 2005], http://www.ChristianityToday.com/ct/2005/august/13.31html, accessed July, 24, 2008; (2) the sinfulness of the human heart, an emphasis on the church having a large number of members, and budgetary demands (Mark Dever, “Shaping Holy Disciples,” Christianity Today [August 2005], http://www.ChristianityToday.com/ct/2005/august/13.31html, accessed July 24, 2008; (3) media censure of church disciplinary cases (Thomas C. Oden, “Our Uniquely Undisciplined Moment,” n.p. http://www.ChristianityToday.com/ct/2005/augustweb-only/130–54.0.html, accessed July 24, 2008.

[3]Hippolytus, The Apostolic Traditions, 20, in The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, Bishop and Martyr, ed. Gregory Dix (London: SPCK, 1968), 30–31.

[4]Ibid., 16.9–25, in Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition, 24–28.

[5]The early Christians, here represented by Justin Martyr, would have nothing to do with so-called Christians who were not Christ-followers. Writing a defense of Christianity to the Roman emperor, Justin Martyr explained, “And let those who are not found living as he [Christ] taught, be understood to be no Christians, even though they profess with the lip the precepts of Christ; for not those who make profession, but those who do the works, shall be saved. . . . [He cites Matt. 7:21ff.; Luke 13:26; Matt. 13:42; Matt. 7:15, 16, 19]. And as to those who are not living pursuant to these his teachings, and are Christians only in name, we demand that all such be punished by you [the emperor]” (Justin Martyr, First Apology 16 [ANF 1:168]).

[6]Martin Luther, “On the Councils of the Church,” in Church and Ministry III, ed. Eric W. Gritsch, vol. 41 of Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), 153–154.

[7]John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 4.1.10.

[8]For specific cases of church discipline, see the multivolume work (still in process) on the consistory of Geneva during Calvin’s time, of which one volume has been published: Robert M. Kingdon, gen. ed., M. Wallace McDonald, trans., The Registers of the Consistory of Geneva at the Time of Calvin: Volume 1: 1542–1544 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000).

[9]The Thirty-nine Articles, 19, in Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, Volume 3: The Evangelical Protestant Creeds (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1966), 499.

[10]Belgic Confession of Faith, 29, in Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols. (New York: Harper, 1877–1905), 3:419; Scottish Confession of Faith, 18, in ibid., 3:461–462.

[11]Gregory Wills, Democratic Religion: Freedom, Authority, and Church Discipline in the Baptist South, 1785–1900 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997).

[12]My thanks to my student Jeremy Kimble for discovering this notion; my discussion is a modification and expansion on his seminal idea. His inspiration for it came from a statement by Michael Horton: “Just as God’s future ‘intrudes’ on the present through Word and sacrament (the inauguration, sign, and seal of the new creation and the wedding feast), excommunication is an eschatological sign of the last judgment in the present” (Michael S. Horton, Eschatology and Covenant: The Divine Drama [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002], 272).

[13]For the sake of clarity and simplicity, this definition focuses on the exercise of church discipline that is judgment. Oppositely—and this is the preferred scenario—the process of church discipline results in repentance and restoration of the sinful member to church fellowship. Even in this scenario, the church’s action is a proleptic and declarative sign of the divine eschatological absolution (rather than judgment). As a proleptic sign, it is a forecast of things to come. As a declarative sign, such restorative action is intended to reflect the divine absolution to come, but it is not an infallible assessment.

[14]Whether this judgment will be meted out at the same time or in two separate moments—the resurrection of life at Christ’s return, and the resurrection of judgment after the millennium period—is not germane to this current discussion.

[15]It may be that such discipline is enacted against a church member who turns out to be one who merely professed faith in Jesus Christ but is not a genuine Christ-follower. In this case, church discipline anticipates a divine eschatological judgment of eternal condemnation. In the case of a genuine Christ-follower against whom discipline is undertaken, the church’s action anticipates a future divine judgment of (at least) the loss of potential reward (1 Cor. 3:12–15).

[16]The phrase “supplies a coefficient that is essential to the competency of the tribunal” (Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, 2nd ed., ICC [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1983], 98).

[17]The Greek expression is περὶ παντὸς πράγματος (peri pantos pragmatos), with πρᾶγμα (pragma) often referring to forensic actions (D. A. Carson, Matthew, Expositor’s Bible Commentary 8 [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan/Regency, 1984], 403; BDAG, s.v.).

[18]This passage does not address a situation in which a non-Christian sins against a Christian; clearly, the church cannot exercise discipline against that nonbeliever. Likewise, this passage does not address a situation in which a Christian sins against a non-Christian, but certainly the procedure outlined here by Jesus applies (with possible modification) in that case as well. Because the scenario addressed here is the sin of one Christian against another Christian, the contours of my discussion will follow that situation.

[19]Jesus addresses the case of actual sin that has strained or broken a relationship between two Christians. Another scenario, not addressed by this text, that occurs quite commonly is the case when a Christian says or does something to another Christian that appears to be a sin. Because miscommunication can easily take place in relationships, it seems advisable in this case for the offended person to approach the other initially with the hope that the incident is just a case of misunderstanding. Perhaps the conversation can go something like this: “The other day, when you spoke to me about that matter, I had the sense that you were belittling me. I hope this is just a misperception on my part, but I do want to bring it to your attention and ask that you clarify it for me.” This approach leaves open the possibility—indeed, expresses the hope—that the problem is only a misperception; thus, it does not begin with an accusation. If it turns out that the incident is not a matter of misunderstanding but is a case of actual sin, then Jesus’ instructions come into play.

[20]The word for “witnesses” in Matthew 18:16 is μάρτυρες (martures); New Testament words for “eyewitnesses” are αὐτόπται (autoptai; Luke 1:2) and ἐπόπται (epoptai; 2 Pet. 1:16).

[21]This seems to be the most logical implication to draw, for two reasons: first, if confession and repentance are effected by the second-step conversation, the matter is over. What need is there for any further witness(es)? Second, the text continues with the assumption that the desired outcome—confession and repentance—does not occur. Thus, the testimony of the witness(es) will play a role in the next stage of the disciplinary process.

[22]Some have seen in this expression the permission to encourage the excommunicated person to continue to attend church worship services so that he or she can be exposed to the gospel and, as a pagan (so the expression “a Gentile and a tax collector” is interpreted), be converted. True, Jesus was a friend to sinners and tax collectors and often made such people the heart of his ministry (e.g., Matt. 9:10–13; 11:19; Luke 18:9–14). But “Gentile” can also refer to one who was outside of the covenant community (and often the target of Jesus’ scorn; e.g., Matt. 5:47; 6:7, 32), and “tax collector” can also denote one who, as a traitor siding with the enemy, was an outcast from his own people. Considering the context of Jesus’ instructions about church discipline, the latter interpretation is far more plausible. Accordingly, severe measures are demanded at this last stage of the disciplinary process. Moreover, part of the responsibility of the church at worship is to acknowledge its identity as the called out and sent people of God who are together engaged in the missio Dei. The worshiping church is “to help make this identification incontestable and complete” (J. J. von Allmen, “The Theological Frame of a Liturgical Renewal,” CQ 2 [1969–1970]: 11). Retention of excommunicated members in the church at worship obscures who are genuine Christians and who are not. Until the Lord returns, totally accurate identification of Christ-followers will not be possible, but the church must not draw back in fear of making disciplinary mistakes but must press on to exercise proper disciplinary action in accordance with the Word of God. And the last step in such discipline—removing the persistently sinning member from the church—as hard as it is, will sometimes be necessary.

[23]In Matthew 16:19, Jesus uses the same expression about binding and loosing in the context of his discussion about the building of his church on the rock of Peter’s confession of the identity of the Son of Man (Matt. 16:13–20). In that discussion, Jesus says, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Keys serve to open and close doors; as Jesus himself notes elsewhere (Rev. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1–2; 20:1–3; cf. his denunciation of the Pharisees in Luke 11:52). Thus, the keys belonging to the church open up the kingdom or shut it off. The close association of Jesus’ instructions about the keys with the predication of his death and resurrection (Matt. 16:21) helps us interpret the keys as the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the good news of his cross work and resurrection on behalf of sinful people. According to their actions in the book of Acts, the apostles certainly understood the keys as a reference to the ministry of the Word of God. The grammatical construction—periphrastic future perfects of loosing and binding (for an orientation to the issues involved, see Carson, Matthew, 370–372)—and similar wording link the Matthew 16 passage with the Matthew 18 passage, with this difference: whereas in his first instructions, Jesus is addressing the founding and building of his church, in his second instructions he directs his attention to the problem of sin between Christians in the church. In the latter section, then, the keys for entrance into or exclusion from the kingdom are not specifically mentioned. Rather, what is bound or loosed is the Christian who persists in entrenched sin despite repeated attempts to urge him to confession and repentance (he is therefore bound in his sins under church discipline) or the Christian who does confess and repent and so is reconciled with the church (he is therefore loosed from his sins and released from church discipline).

[24]Verses 19 and 20 may have application to the church in general and small groups of Christ-followers in particular, but their principal point of encouragement and hope is directed toward the process of church discipline. As noted in note 15, the matter addressed by this promise (v. 19) is agreement περὶ παντὸς πράγματος (peri pantos pragmatos), “about judicial matters,” or the disciplinary action taken by the church.

[25]To wait until an actual case requiring the disciplinary process to address this issue is to court disaster, because the church’s leadership and the entire membership will be ill prepared to take on the actual situation. I recall struggling to rehabilitate discipline in a church. When I informed the erring person that the process had begun and explained how it would proceed, the member reminded me, “we don’t exercise discipline in this church.” The person was correct; for decades, the practice had been ignored. I had to agree with the observation, but I also confessed that the church had been in error for all the time that it let the practice languish. So this person’s case became the precedent. This became helpful when not too long afterward, another case requiring church discipline presented itself, and the erring member made the same observation for me. This time, I was ready with a response: no, the observation is not correct, because we have a precedent—recent as it may be—for discipline in the church. That fact appeased the erring member.

[26]In an instance of church discipline in which I had a leadership role, I felt that sufficient time had elapsed for confession and repentance to take place and that we needed to proceed to the next step of taking the case to the church. The senior pastor, however, urged us to have one more meeting with the erring member. Though I considered this would be a complete waste of time, I reluctantly agreed to the meeting. Amazingly, God’s grace and conviction of sin broke through in our “final” confrontation, and the sinful person confessed and repented of his sin. The process must leave room for the power of God to intervene.

[27]Adapted from Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 892.

[28]An unknown letter that has not been preserved for us.

[29]The writing that we now call 2 Corinthians actually followed a “painful visit” by Paul to the church of Corinth (2 Cor. 2:1) and a severe letter (2 Cor. 2:3–4; 7:8–16)—not preserved for us—strongly rebuking the rebellious Corinthians.

[30]For another example of this, see the case of Paul’s excommunication of Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Tim. 1:19–20).

[31]John L. Dagg, A Treatise on Church Order (Charleston, SC: The Southern Baptist Publication Society, 1858), 274.

[32]Grudem, Systematic Theology, 895.

[33]William Bullein Johnson, The Gospel Developed through the Government and Order of the Churches of Jesus Christ (Richmond, VA: H. K. Ellyson, 1846), in Dever, Polity, 222.

[34]Examples of this position include Jay E. Adams, Handbook of Church Discipline: A Right and Privilege of Every Church Member (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1974), 67–68; A. H. Strong, The Doctrine of Salvation, 3 vols. (Philadelphia: Judson, 1912), 3:924–925.

[35]Grudem, Systematic Theology, 895.

[36]Benjamin Keach, The Glory of a True Church, and Its Discipline Display’d (London: John Robinson, 1697), quoted in Dever, Polity, 74–75. For other examples of this position, see David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003), 156–157

[37]The Greek word ἀνάθεμα (anathema), employed here by Paul and translated “accursed,” is the strongest possible pronouncement of condemnation.

[38]An excellent example is Paul’s teaching on the resurrection against the backdrop of false belief concerning this crucial doctrine in the church at Corinth (1 Cor. 15; cf. 2 Tim. 2:17–18). Because heretical views generally develop over time and do not appear suddenly as false teachings, at times early detection of heresy is difficult. As Wainwright explains, “the difficulty is to decide where, at any given time, the line should be drawn between the diversity of different but symphonic voices and the clash of contradictions which becomes cacophony. It is a matter of deciding where a unilateral emphasis amounts to a distortion; where additions are enrichments, where dilutions; where simplification is purification, where truncation. It is a matter of deciding where tentative exploration opens up new vistas and where it misses its way and passes into error or nothingness” (Geoffrey Wainwright, Doxology: The Praise of God in Worship, Doctrine, and Life [New York: Oxford University Press, 1980], 11).

[39]Cf. 2 Thessalonians 3:14–15; James 5:19–20.

[40]As discussed in chapter 5, there is at least one other case of legitimate separation: when a church drifts away from sound doctrine so as to become a false church, genuine Christ-followers should separate from that group.

[41]Some allowance must be made for exceptions to this principle of disciplining an elder. In one case in which I was involved, the wife of one of the church leaders revealed that he physically abused her. She was too frightened to go to the police and report him, fearing his recriminations if the police would not intervene swiftly enough and protect her. Furthermore, she had not talked to anyone else about this difficult matter, so there were no witnesses to confirm her story. (Confirmation of physical abuse is often very difficult anyway, for other people rarely see the actual beatings and plausible excuses always seem to be offered for the physical marks that result from them.) Our inactivity as a leadership team in her case was not the right course of action, so I don’t have any solution that has worked in my experience. If the same scenario would present itself today, I would urge her to go to the police as I took steps with the church leaders to make sure that she would be protected from her abuser. Paul’s instructions about other witnesses to an accusation against a pastor should not be manipulated or misapplied to allow him to get away with egregious sin.

[42]Alternatively, the final phrase “so that the rest may stand in fear” (1 Tim. 5:20) refers specifically to the other elders of the church. However, this understanding seems less likely due to the immediately preceding command that the rebuke of the erring elder be carried out “in the presence of all,” which goes beyond the council of elders to include the whole congregation.

[43]Grudem, Systematic Theology, 897.

[44]Ibid., 891.

[45]A similar list to that in Galatians 5:19–21 is provided in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10. But such sins are not just found in lists conveniently interspersed throughout the Bible. The church needs to read Scripture “better” than that. For example, Jesus’ rebuke directed at his disciples—“O you of little faith” (Matt. 6:30; 8:26; 14:31; 16:8)—will certainly be heard again at the last judgment as Jesus denounces Christians characterized by faithlessness.

[46]Those who, for example, are particularly susceptible to sexual sins should not be involved in disciplinary cases involving sexual immorality.

[47]For helpful discussions of church discipline and its practice, see the following: Grudem, Systematic Theology, chapter 46; Wills, Democratic Religion; Adams, Handbook of Church Discipline; John White and Ken Blue, Healing the Wounded: The Costly Love of Church Discipline (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985); Dever, Polity; Roy Knuteson, Calling the Church to Discipline: A Scriptural Guide for the Church That Dares to Discipline (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1977); J. Carl Laney, A Guide to Church Discipline (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1985); Mark Lauterbach, The Transforming Community: The Practice of the Gospel in Church Discipline (Carol Stream, IL: Christian Focus, 2003); James T. South, Disciplinary Practices in Pauline Texts (Lewistown, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1992); Daniel E. Wray, Biblical Church Discipline (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1978); Eric Bargerhuff, Love That Rescues: God’s Fatherly Love in the Practice of Church Discipline (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010); Jonathan Leeman, The Church and the Surprising Offense of God’s Love (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2009); Thomas C. Oden, Corrective Love: The Power of Communion Discipline (St. Louis: Concordia, 1995).

IV

THE GOVERNMENT

OF THE CHURCH

CHAPTER

SEVEN

THE OFFICES OF THE CHURCH

For the church, God has appointed a leadership structure or government—the more traditional word polity will also be used—consisting of church offices, the leaders who serve in those offices through various responsibilities and the authority that is fitting for those duties, and a relationship between those officers and the other members of the church. These and other matters are the topics of the following three chapters on the government of the church. Chapter 7 treats the various offices of the church (apostleship, eldership, and the diaconate), chapter 8 covers the various forms of church polity (episcopalianism, presbyterianism, and congregationalism), and chapter 9 presents my proposal for plural-elder-led, deacon and deaconess served, congregational churches with strong interchurch connections.

THE OFFICE OF APOSTLE

The Apostles and Their Qualifications

Near the beginning of his ministry, Jesus “went up on the mountain and called to him those whom he desired, and they came to him. And he appointed twelve (whom he also named apostles) so that they might be with him and he might send them out to preach and have authority to cast out demons” (Mark 3:13–15). The names of these twelve were “Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter); James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder); Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him” (Mark 3:16–19). These “apostles of Jesus Christ” are referred to as “the twelve” throughout the Gospels (e.g., Matt. 26:20; Mark 4:10; Luke 18:31; “the Twelve,” John 6:67, 71).

Tragically, yet ordained by God, one of the Twelve—Judas Iscariot—betrayed his friend and master Jesus (Matt. 26:14–25; 47–56). Acknowledging his heinous crime, Judas attempted to give back the blood money, the price for which he had betrayed Jesus, but was rebuffed and committed suicide (Matt. 27:3–10; Acts 1:18–19). Peter and the Eleven (as the Twelve were renamed)[1] saw in this event a fulfillment of Scripture and an imperative to find a replacement for the fallen apostle (Acts 1:15–20). Two men—“Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias” (v. 23)—met the criteria for the office of apostleship: they had been with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry at the time of John the Baptist and, by being present for at least one of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances, were eyewitnesses of his resurrection (vv. 21–22). Through prayer and the casting of lots, the Eleven asked the Lord to “show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place” (vv. 24–25). Matthias was chosen, “and he was numbered with the eleven apostles” (v. 26). These twelve apostles—once again constituted as “the twelve” (Acts 6:2; 1 Cor. 15:5)[2]—are those whose names are written on the foundation of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:14).

In addition to the Twelve, several other disciples are referred to as apostles in the New Testament: Paul was called and appointed by Christ himself to be an apostle (Acts 26:12–18),[3] received a post-resurrection appearance of Jesus (9:1–9),[4] and engaged in the work of an apostle, including receiving divine revelation (Eph. 3:1–6), planting churches (2:20; many of the churches discussed in Acts were started by Paul), performing miraculous signs and wonders (2 Cor. 12:12; e.g., Acts 14:8–18; 20:7–12), and writing Scripture (his thirteen letters). Barnabas was termed an apostle on par with Paul (Acts 14:14; 1 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 2:9) and engaged in apostolic ministry (Acts 13–14). James, the brother of Jesus, was called an apostle (Gal. 1:19; 2:9), exercised apostolic influence at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:12–21), and wrote Scripture (the letter of James). A few other disciples could possibly be considered apostles—Silvanus/Silas and Timothy (1 Thess. 1:1; 2:6),[5] Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25–30; 4:18),[6] and Andronicus and Junia(s) (Rom. 16:7).[7]

The Ministries of the Apostles

As hinted above, the ministries in which the apostles were engaged were many and varied. The apostles were the Spirit-anointed (John 14:26; 15:26–27; 16:13–15; e.g., Acts 5:27–32) and Spirit-empowered (Acts 1:8) eyewitnesses of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They were the first who preached the gospel (2:14–41; 3:11–26) and engaged the first Christians in authoritative teaching (2:42–47) as they established the church in Jerusalem. From this base, disciples who were not apostles (8:1) spread the good news in Samaria (8:4–25), from Azotus to Caesarea (8:40), and in Damascus (9:19–22), so that the church spread “throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria” (9:31). The apostle Peter was the first to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (10–11:18), but it was again through non-apostles that the message was taken into “Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch” (11:19–26). It was in this latter city that “the disciples were first called Christians” (11:26), and Antioch became the base of missional endeavors spearheaded by the apostle Paul (Acts 13ff.). The result of these missionary journeys was the establishment and strengthening of churches in cities and towns such as Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, Corinth, and Ephesus. According to early Christian tradition, the rest of the apostles established churches elsewhere.[8] From these apostolically founded churches, the Christian movement spread throughout the Roman Empire and beyond.

As they engaged in their evangelism and church planting, the apostles performed “signs and wonders and mighty works”; such powerful deeds were commonplace among the apostles (Acts 2:43; 5:12) and constituted “the signs of a true apostle” (2 Cor. 12:12). Some examples of these miraculous deeds included healings—the lame (Acts 3:1–10; 14:8–18), the sick and those with unclean spirits (5:15–16; 16:16–24; 19:11–12), and the paralyzed (9:32–35)—and resurrections from the dead (9:36–43; 20:7–12). These miraculous signs and wonders confirmed the gospel message and the apostles as its messengers (2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:4), underscored the inbreaking and presence of the kingdom of God, and garnered much attention for the church and its mission.

Among the early churches, the apostles exercised peculiar authority. For example, Paul established set patterns of conduct that were to be observed “in all the churches.” Among other matters, these rules pertained to maintaining one’s vocation after conversion (1 Cor. 7:17–24), participation of women in the evaluation of prophecies (14:29–35), and personal sanctification (1 Thess. 4:1–8). Whether such “traditions” came through direct speech or written letters (2 Thess. 2:15), the churches were to hold tightly to them. To disrespect such apostolic instructions—based on failure to acknowledge the authority of Jesus Christ that stood behind such teaching—brought disrespect (1 Cor. 14:36–38) upon the churches and severe judgment (2 Cor. 13:1–4) and excommunication of the erring members (2 Thess. 3:14–15). This apostolic authority was also exercised in the appointment of the first elders of the churches (Acts 14:23) and in the decision of the Jerusalem council concerning how to implement its acknowledgment that salvation is appropriated by faith alone (Acts 15).

From this latter example, we affirm “the collaborative nature of the ministry of apostles. Authority among the apostles was diffused in apostolic networks of transcontextual [across locations] oversight.”[9] This authority was not absolute; rather, it derived from the authority of Jesus Christ and his appointment of the apostles for their apostolic task. And this appointment depended on their being eyewitness of the Lord: “Externally the first Churches cohered in the Apostles and their authority. It was an authority that rested upon their autopsy [Greek autopsia, seeing with one’s own eyes]—they had seen and companied with the Lord, and were witnesses of His having risen.”[10] As Thiselton explains, “The grounding of apostolic ministry derives from a distinctive apostolic status as ‘founders’ of the communities and as translocal overseers. In the end, we might say, ‘the “grammar” of apostleship rests upon the effectiveness and transparency of this [apostolic] witness to that for the sake of which apostles were commissioned.’”[11] In other words, apostolic authority applied to and only to their ministry as apostles. Their apostolic authority did not mean that the apostles were infallible; the case of Peter’s hypocrisy demonstrates clearly that the apostles could err (Gal. 2:11–14). But when directed toward the furtherance of the gospel ministry and the establishment and strengthening of churches, apostolic authority was decisive, even taking precedence over personal revelations from the Lord (1 Cor. 14:36–40) and confronting the teachings of other so-called (false) apostles with dismissive force (e.g., 2 Cor. 11–13).

Of course, from Scripture we know about the gospel, the birth and expansion of the church, the powerful ministries of the apostles, and the person and work of Jesus Christ from which all this activity flowed. The writing of the New Testament was another ministry of (some of) the apostles. Specifically, Matthew, John, Paul, James, and Peter were responsible for twenty-two of the twenty-seven writings of the New Testament. Moreover, some of these apostles (Peter; Paul), through their close association with certain non-apostles, extended apostolicity to those non-apostolic writings such that the Gospel of Mark and both Luke’s Gospel and the book of Acts are included in the canon of the New Testament. It is this legacy—apostolically written or apostolically derived Scripture—to which Protestants in general and evangelicals in particular point as the authority for their churches. This position stands over against apostolic succession, apostolic tradition (outside of Scripture), and alleged apostolic practice (outside of Scripture)[12] as the supreme authority for orthodoxy (sound doctrine), orthopraxis (right practice), and orthopatheia (proper emotion). Again, Thiselton rightly notes, “Without the primary founding witnesses to the death and resurrection of Christ, the identity and continuity of the church would have been at risk. James Smart observes that without the witness of the apostolic circle transmitted through Scripture, ‘soon the remembered Christ becomes an imagined Christ.’”[13] With Scripture inspired by God and written by apostles, the church has its authority preserved.

The Cessation of the Office of Apostle

As eyewitnesses of the ministry and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as planters of the first churches, as workers of signs and wonders and miraculous deeds, as recipients of peculiar authority to be exercised in the earliest churches, and as writers of Scripture, the apostles constitute the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:20). Accordingly, I maintain that the office of apostleship was unique and temporary, divinely designed to be formative for the early church and then to cease with the death of the last apostle.

Certainly, no person today can meet the stated requirements for apostleship—being with Jesus from the outset of his three-year ministry and an eyewitness of his resurrection—so no person today can be qualified biblically for the office. Furthermore, any so-called modern apostles could only serve non-apostolic purposes: they could not describe the self-giving nature, the compassionate acts of healing, the authoritative teaching, the practice of prayer, the confrontations with dissenters, the citation of Hebrew Scripture, the torment of soul, the resistance of temptation, and the appearances behind closed doors of Jesus—other than instances of such attitudes and activities about which they read in Scripture. They could not establish and strengthen the first churches after Pentecost. They could not set new and different patterns of conduct to be observed “in all the churches” without violating the sufficiency of Scripture. They could not write Scripture. So what apostolic purposes could they serve?[14] Moreover, those who take the title to themselves (or who are called apostles by their church/denomination) go against the history of the church (no major figure—e.g., Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, Billy Graham—has called himself or has been called an apostle) and risk serious misunderstanding (one would assume that a modern-day apostle would wield authority similar to that which the apostles in the early church exercised).

For these reasons, I hold that the office of apostle is no longer operative today. But two other offices/officers—eldership/elder and diaconate/deacon—do continue today and constitute the important leadership structures of the church.[15]

THE OFFICE OF ELDER

To some degree, the early church’s office of elder was influenced by the similar office within Jewish synagogues. As Ben Witherington notes, “Elders were of course both well known and well respected in the Jewish community as the leaders of the community itself, and later when there came to be synagogues, leaders within the synagogue. They were the guardians of the ethic of the community, and they were held responsible for maintaining good moral order and exercising good moral judgment. . . . Suffice it to say that the notion of Christian elders owes something to Judaism.”[16] Whatever the extent of this influence, the New Testament provides plenty of material concerning the church office of elder.

The New Testament uses several words to refer to this office. Most commonly, ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos) and πρεσβύτερος (presbuteros) are used; these words are usually translated, respectively, bishop or overseer, and elder or presbyter. Another word, ποιμήν (poimēn), is found less frequently even though its translation, pastor, is a common English word used in churches to refer to this office. Importantly for our discussion, the New Testament uses these words interchangeably; this is specifically the case with bishop or overseer (ἐπίσκοπος; episkopos) and elder or presbyter (πρεσβύτερος; presbuteros).[17] For example, convening together the elders of the church of Ephesus (πρεσβύτεροι; presbuteroi; Acts 20:17), Paul charges them to shepherd well the church in which the Spirit has established them as overseers (ἐπίσκοποι; episkopoi; v. 28). Similarly, after addressing the office of and qualifications for overseer (ἐπίσκοπος; episkopos; 1 Tim. 3:1, 2), Paul provides some specific instructions about the men who “rule well” and “labor in preaching and teaching”—two responsibilities of this office—calling these church officers elders (πρεσβύτεροι; presbuteroi; 5:17; cf. Titus 1:5, 7).[18] The case for the interchangeability of pastor with these other two words is less direct but can still be made. Peter exhorts the elders (πρεσβύτεροι; presbuteroi) to “shepherd” (ποιμαίνω; poimainō, the verbal form of ποιμήν, poimēn, or pastor; 1 Pet. 5:1–2) the flock. Also, as just noted, one of the important responsibilities of this office is associated with the word ποιμήν (poimēn) in Paul’s reference to “pastor-teachers” (Eph. 4:11).[19] Appropriately, throughout my discussion, I will use the terms pastor, elder, bishop, and overseer interchangeably (though out of habit I will most often refer to this office as either elder or pastor).

Qualifications

The New Testament, particularly the Pastoral Epistles, offers the qualifications for the office of elder. The first list appears in Paul’s first letter to Timothy:

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. (1 Tim. 3:1–7)

A second list of qualifications appears in Paul’s letter to Titus:

. . . if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. (Titus 1:5–9)[20]

It deserves note that Paul addresses the qualifications for elders against the backdrop of his warnings about false teachers. It should not surprise us, therefore, that some of the characteristics on which he insists for those who should lead the church aright are the opposite of the traits exhibited by those who would lead the church astray. The following discussion will work from the text of 1 Timothy 3:1–7 while making reference to the text of Titus 1:5–9 when appropriate.[21]

As Paul begins his list of qualifications, he commends the man who aspires to exercise the pastoral office because it is a noble task that he seeks to do.[22] Those being considered for this office often deny that they are interested in the position, perhaps out of a false sense of Christian humility and/or wanting to avoid the appearance of grabbing for power. Paul’s commendation, however, strikes against such disavowal of interest: aspiration to the office of elder is honorable.

The candidate for the office must be above reproach (cf. Titus 1:6, 7), probably an all-encompassing term that Paul proceeds to detail in the ensuing list.[23] With regard to what follows, the elder must not be open to any charge of fault; indeed, if attacked and accused of some flaw, he must be found to be blameless. In terms of the specific qualifications that Paul lists, all seem to address the man’s present state in life; that is, the ensuing characteristics must be true of the elder in his current situation. Obviously, this cannot be construed to mean that the person’s background is unimportant in consideration of his fitness for the office, but it does imply that no former misdeed (including, it would seem, persecution of the church by the writer of the letter to Timothy!) necessarily disqualifies a man from serving in this capacity.

The qualification the husband of one wife (cf. Titus 1:6) is highly debated, being interpreted in several different ways.[24] Some take it to be a prohibition against polygamy; an elder must have a monogamous marriage.[25] Whereas there is some evidence that polygamy was a problem in both Greco-Roman and Jewish societies of Paul’s day, it was not a pronounced concern; certainly, polyandry was unheard of among women.[26] For this reason, it is not possible to take Paul’s imperative that a true widow must have been “the wife of one husband” (1 Tim. 5:9) as a prohibition against multiple husbands. Accordingly, “the husband of one wife,” as the parallel qualification of men for the position of elder, should not be taken as a prohibition against polygamy.[27]

Others believe that Paul mandates that an elder be married. This view too runs into difficulty with 1 Timothy 5:9: if “the wife of one husband” means that a widow must have been married prior to becoming a widow, Paul is caught in a tautology. By definition, a widow is one who has been married; thus, “the wife of one husband” must mean something other than that a widow must have been married. Given the parallelism with Paul’s qualification in 1 Timothy 3:2, “the husband of one wife” must mean something other than that an elder must be married to qualify to serve in this office. Moreover, this view seems incorrect because it contradicts the apostle’s high praise of the celibate person who “is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord” and is able to render “undivided devotion to the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:32, 35). Such devoted men would seem to be prime candidates for the eldership. Finally, this view would disqualify the unmarried Paul himself from the office.

Some interpret Paul’s instruction as meaning that a divorced man cannot be an elder; if a candidate for elder is currently divorced or was divorced in the past and is now remarried, he is not qualified for the office. This view seems to contradict both Jesus’ allowance for divorce in the case of adultery (porneia) on the part of the spouse (Matt. 19:7–9) and Paul’s permission for the divorce of a Christian if the nonbelieving spouse wishes to dissolve the marriage (1 Cor. 7:12–16). Modifying this view of 1 Timothy 3:2 slightly, others maintain that while Paul allows for a divorce, he prohibits remarriage. But the actual expression “the husband of one wife” being general in nature, cannot be limited to prohibiting remarriage after divorce.[28] Moreover, this view still seems to contradict the above two biblical permissions for divorce because, if the marriage covenant or bond has been broken in these legitimate instances, the Christian is free to remarry.[29]

Another interpretation is that Paul prohibits a widower from getting remarried and becoming an elder. But the apostle’s affirmation elsewhere that death dissolves the marital union, thus opening the way for remarriage (1 Cor. 7:39–40; cf. Rom. 7:1–3), renders this understanding unlikely. Moreover, if Paul had wanted to indicate no remarriage after the death of one’s spouse (or after divorce, for that matter), he could easily have phrased the qualification as “having been married only once.”

This leaves the view that Paul prohibits marital unfaithfulness as the most plausible interpretation. The candidate for the pastoral office must be “the husband of one wife” in the sense of being faithful to her and eschewing inappropriate relationships with all other women. If he were to be accused of immorality or some other inappropriate liaisons with other women, the charge would fail because he has been a “one woman man” (a literal translation of the expression μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα), faithful to his wife all along.

The pastor must also be sober-minded, a temperate, sensible, and stable person; self-controlled (cf. Titus 1:8), level-headed in terms of his thought life, emotions, and volition, and sensible in terms of his discernment; and respectable, well-ordered in terms of his behavior and lifestyle. Furthermore, he must be hospitable (cf. Titus 1:8), a friend indeed to strangers (the literal sense of the word; cf. Heb. 13:2) as well as to fellow Christ-followers (Rom. 12:13; 1 Pet. 4:9). Not a personality trait (in terms of being extroverted), being hospitable is rather an indication of selflessness; it means that the elder must willingly welcome and open up his home to others.[30] Moreover, he must be able to teach, both understanding and embracing sound doctrine and being able to communicate that biblical and theological knowledge to others. In Titus 1:9 Paul adds, “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.” This instruction makes explicit the required ability of pastors to engage people who promote false doctrine (which would include ungodly behavior and lifestyle, as well as impious sentiment) and demonstrate the error of their convictions. As I will discuss later, not all elders have teaching as their primary ministry (1 Tim. 5:17) but, according to the qualification here, all elders must be able to teach.

Turning to forbidden matters, drunkenness is prohibited (cf. Titus 1:7); an elder must not be addicted to wine (and, by extension, any drug that alters his mind and conduct). Also excluded is violence (cf. Titus 1:7); he must not be pugnacious, striking out at others physically (and, by extension, spiritually, verbally, or emotionally) but gentle instead. Furthermore, quarrelsomeness is banned; an elder must not be contentious, “quick-tempered” (Titus 1:7) so as to bicker and spar with others (which will entail his having “nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies . . . [that] breed quarrels”; 2 Tim. 2:23; cf. Titus 3:9). Finally, greediness is barred (Titus 1:7); he must not be a materialistic lover of money or “shepherd the flock . . . for shameful gain” (1 Pet. 5:2).

So as to ascertain the ability of a potential elder—and to assess and ensure confidence in the ability of a current elder—to lead at the macrocosmic level of the church, Paul instructs that the candidate or present elder must demonstrate a good managerial skill at the microcosmic level of his home. Though such a capability at the lower level is not a guarantee of success at the higher level, good home management is a strong indicator of future success. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive presupposes the family structure elsewhere developed in the Pauline corpus that the husband is the head of his wife and loves her sacrificially (Eph. 5:22–33; cf. 1 Cor. 11:3) and that he appropriately leads his children to obey him (Eph. 6:1–4; Col. 3:20–21).[31] This qualification does not demand that an elder must be married, but it presupposes that most will have both a wife and children. In the case of a single man, his managerial abilities may be ascertained by observing how he runs his business, engages his clients, teaches his students, conducts himself with his family of origin (or nurture), and the like. In terms of children, evaluation of the elder’s fitness in meeting this qualification must take into consideration the normal pattern of childhood and adolescent growth and development.[32] Paul’s further discussion of this qualification for an elder—his children are believers and are not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination (Titus 1:6)—may mean either that his sons and daughters are faithful and submissive, or that they, like their father (and probably because of his influence and example), are Christ-followers. If the latter interpretation is correct, the reality of household faith attests strongly to the father’s fitness for eldership. If the former interpretation is correct, the faithfulness of the children stands over against the despicable conduct of drunkenness and disobedience denounced for contrast. Because of this contextual contrast, this interpretation seems more plausible.

Two more qualifications conclude the list. An elder must not be a new convert, one who has recently embraced the Christian faith. But the idea is not so much one of time as it is of maturity; the potential elder must be spiritually mature. Of course, exceptions exist: the elders whom Paul and Barnabas appointed at the conclusion of their first missionary journey could not have been Christians more than a few months and probably not more than a few weeks (Acts 14:23). Moreover, the absence of this qualification in Paul’s list in Titus 1:5–9 may be due to the fact that the churches in Crete were relatively new compared to the church of Ephesus; thus, he permits fairly new Christ-followers to become elders in those developing churches. Paul gives the reason for this prohibition: he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. When the immense responsibilities that elders must undertake are discharged by neophytes in the faith, the tendency is for them to become arrogant and, puffed up with pride like the devil, to fall terribly as he did.[33] One final qualification for the pastoral office: he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. If the church’s reputation with non-Christians is to be maintained and the gospel is to be adorned with good works so that it continues to speak powerfully into their lives, an elder must have an excellent standing in the community outside of the church. A hypocritical elder brings disgrace upon himself and becomes entrapped by the devil, who leverages such a fall to destroy the church’s Christlike character and witness for Christ.[34]

A few more comments are in order. Titus 1:5–9 includes four characteristics not listed in 1 Timothy 3:1–7: an elder must be a lover of good, setting his mind on all that is noble and honorable (Phil. 4:8) and engaging in good works (Titus 2:14); upright, being fair and impartial in his treatment of others; holy, living a life separated from sin and unto God; and disciplined, or self-controlled in body. Finally, careful reflection on the actual exercise of this office prompts the listing of several additional characteristics that, even if not on the list of biblical qualifications, certainly conform to overall biblical standards and seem to be of great importance if the eldership is to be fruitful: “the capacity for hard work and the ability to inspire others to join in; humility when God is blessing one’s ministry; a willingness to take up new challenges rather than becoming complacent; the capacity to continue to love others even when under criticism rather than becoming embittered; and the ability to persevere under pressure and disappointment.”[35]

The application and contextualization of these biblical qualifications for the office of pastor are of signal importance for churches today that hope to honor Jesus Christ and to mature as Christian assemblies, develop fully devoted disciples of Christ, reach out through missional endeavors and ministries of mercies to communities around them, and plant other churches both locally and globally. Repentance is first demanded for those churches that have either intentionally disregarded or ignorantly overlooked these instructions, substituting instead such characteristics as popularity, wealth, business expertise, education, social standing, rhetorical prowess, skill set, and/or power for the qualifications for their officeholders. Current church leadership should resolutely and graciously (re)introduce the church to these requirements and begin the long process of (re)orienting the selection of elders in accordance with these characteristics. A good dose of patience and realistic expectations are needed during the arduous transition period. Wholesale dismissal of current leaders who do not meet these qualifications seems imprudent and may destroy the church through lack of (even weak) leadership. Minimum expectations should be set at first and then raised progressively as certain benchmarks are reached. Training of potential future elders must be undertaken with these requirements in mind and be geared to fostering their development. Key to this approach is raising the overall spiritual life of the church because, with the exception of the requirement “able to teach,” all of the qualifications for pastoral office are qualities demanded of Christians in general. Accordingly, when the overall spiritual tenor of the church is increased, more men will be raised up to be above reproach and, as they express the desire, will be qualified for the office of elder. Perfection in each of these areas is not possible, but men who exhibit these characteristics in high and increasing measure should be the leaders who fill the office of elder.

Responsibilities

As church leaders who meet these qualifications, elders are entrusted with certain responsibilities: teaching, leading, praying, and shepherding. Each of these responsibilities will be discussed in turn.

First, and specifically in the Pastoral Epistles in which this responsibility is outlined, teaching refers to the communication of sound doctrine and the Christlike practice that flows from it.[36] As seen above, all elders must be able to teach (1 Tim. 3:2) as well as to refute those who contradict sound doctrine (Titus 1:9). Moreover, according to 1 Timothy 5:17, ideally some of the elders in a church will dedicate their time and effort “especially” to “preaching and teaching.”[37] Practically speaking, elders fulfill this duty in a variety of ways that may include the following: preaching during the Sunday service(s); teaching Bible studies and Sunday school classes; determining the biblical and theological content of the studies, classes, and various small-group meetings (e.g., cell groups, home Bible studies, community groups); and resolving theological disputes. Furthermore, elders may shoulder this responsibility by engaging in Word-centered small-group discipleship and personal mentoring; communicating the doctrinal statement and church covenant in instructional meetings for potential new members; studying Scripture regularly as an elder team; and modeling commitment to the Word and submission to its instructions.

Of course, this responsibility does not mean that only the elders of a church may engage in the above-listed ministries. They may delegate the responsibilities to well-qualified non-elders. Moreover, older women[38] have the responsibility to teach younger women: “Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled” (Titus 2:3–5). Furthermore, if the Holy Spirit has distributed the gift of teaching to church members who are not elders, those members should exercise their teaching gift in various ministries throughout the church. Still, the primary responsibility for communicating sound biblical and theological truth and the Christlike practice that flows from it falls to the elders of the church.

Second, elders are to lead the church. As seen above, candidates for this office must be good managers of their own household, for the simple reason that they must “care for God’s church” (1 Tim. 3:5). Moreover, according to 1 Timothy 5:17, all the elders engage together in leading the church. To them, respect is to be accorded because “those who labor” among the church “are over” its members “in the Lord” (1 Thess. 5:12).[39] This leadership is exercised at the level of authority of eldership in the church—a sphere of responsibility and authority to teach, lead, pray, and shepherd the church. Clearly, this is not absolute, unmitigated authority. As will be discussed, deacons and deaconesses serve the Lord through many and various ministries in and through the church; this implies that they have the requisite authority to engage in their arenas of service. Furthermore, church members have certain responsibilities to exercise; this too implies that they have a sphere of authority in which they function. Most importantly, Jesus Christ exercises ultimate lordship authority as the head of his body, the church. Thus, the leadership exercised by the elders entails a circumscribed authority that is appropriate for the sphere of responsibility of eldership—no more and no less. Practically speaking, elders exercise oversight in all areas designated to them,[40] which may include the following: managing the pastoral and administrative staff teams; developing the annual budget; deciding and enacting the church’s philosophy of ministry; directing the process for hiring new staff; setting policies for the church; conducting congregational or church business meetings; approving new ministries; developing potential new elders; and the like.

A third elder responsibility is praying. Of course, prayer is a responsibility of all Christians, as can be seen from Jesus’ teaching on prayer (e.g., Matt. 6:7–15; Luke 11:1–4; John 14:12–14) and his practice of prayer (e.g., Matt. 14:23; 26:36–46), Paul’s inclusion of prayers for the churches to which he wrote (e.g., Eph. 1:15–23; 3:14–21), and exhortations for churches to pray (e.g., Phil. 4:6; Col. 4:2–4; 1 Thess. 5:16–18; 2 Thess. 3:1–2; Heb. 13:18–19; Jude 20). While churches and individual Christians generally bear a responsibility to pray, elders have a particular responsibility to pray. If the apostles dedicated themselves “to prayer and to the ministry of the word” (Acts 6:4), it would seem natural, once the apostles were no more, for the elders to assume these responsibilities. The duty for the ministry of teaching has already been covered; that leaves the responsibility for prayer.

Though certainly such intercession is not reserved for church leaders alone, the ministry of prayer for the sick is explicitly given to the elders:

Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praise. Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. (James 5:13–15)[41]

Prayer for the healing of the sick is the responsibility of the church’s elders. When approached by one who is sick, the elders are to anoint the person with oil as a symbol of consecration to the Lord; the idea is that of marking out the sick person for the Lord’s particular attention and blessing.[42] While anointing the sick person, the elders pray over him (quite commonly, the elders lay their hands on the sick person),[43] believing that the Lord can heal him and beseeching the Lord to grant such healing.[44] Several misconceptions concerning this practice need to be addressed. First, the promise of healing is not absolute; if it were, no one for whom the elders pray would ever die. At the same time, the elders and the sick person should expect healing to take place; their prayer and anointing “in the name of the Lord” should reflect that confidence. Second, failure to obtain healing cannot simply be attributed to a lack of faith. Certainly, the elders are to pray for the sick person with the expectation of God’s intervention to heal; they pray believing that the Lord can heal and pleading that the Lord will indeed heal the sick person. Such prayer, however, is always cognizant of divine sovereignty. Earlier, James addresses this matter in his discussion of human planning, when he urges Christians not to make plans arrogantly as if their intention alone decides what will take place. Rather, they are to acknowledge, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that” (James 4:13–16). This same attitude must characterize praying for the sick: “if the Lord wills” this person will be healed, and it is for healing that the elders pray. But such healing may not be the Lord’s will; in that case, the prayer for healing reflects the proper desire—both that of God and of the church—for life rather than death, but ultimately yields to God’s sovereign good purpose. Third, not all sickness is caused by personal sin, but a particular case of sickness may be the result of such sin.[45] In conversation with the sick person before the time of anointing and prayer, the elders should ascertain if sin has been involved and could therefore be responsible for this illness. If it is the case, they should encourage the person to confess that sin or those sins; after the confession, the elders should assure the person that he is forgiven. At this point (as well as if the sickness is not attached to personal sin) the elders should proceed with the anointing and prayer. In this way, praying for the healing of the sick is a responsibility of the elders of the church.[46]

A fourth responsibility of elders is broadly called “shepherding the flock of God” (1 Pet. 5:2). This “pastoral” responsibility (ποιμαίνω [poimainō] is from the same root word as ποιμήν [poimēn], from which we get our word “pastor”; Eph. 4:11 mg.) involves teaching (“pastor-teachers”; Eph. 4:11 mg.) as well as “exercising oversight” (1 Pet. 5:2), so there is some overlap between this duty and the first and second elder tasks. Teaching coming from the acknowledged leaders of the church “feeds the flock” by providing sound doctrine, warning against and rebuke of wrong belief and practice, steering in the correct direction, and training in righteousness so that the members of the church are adequately prepared for every good work to which God calls them (2 Tim. 3:16–17).

What comes to the forefront with this responsibility is exemplary leadership; as Peter urges, elders are not to domineer over those in their charge, but are to be examples to them instead (1 Pet. 5:3). The writer to the Hebrews employs a similar notion, now focusing on the intended result of such exemplary leadership in the lives of church members: “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. . . . Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you” (Heb. 13:7, 17). Imitation and submission are the intended responses to the church’s pastors, who are to exercise leadership as outstanding examples of faith while watching over those for whom they are accountable before God. This component of pastoral guarding is further detailed in Paul’s farewell speech to the elders of the church of Ephesus: “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert.” (Acts 20:28–31).[47] Protection against dangerous, heretical teachers and church leaders is enjoined on elders as part of their pastoral responsibilities.

Practically speaking, elders fulfill this shepherding responsibility by providing excellent (though imperfect) examples of Christlike living; nourishing the church’s members by teaching God’s Word; warning members of potentially dangerous doctrinal positions and of the people who spread them; addressing entrenched sinful situations and relationships in the church through the process of church discipline; and the like.

In summary, the elders of a church are to be a team of qualified men who teach, lead, pray for, and shepherd the church. In the next chapter I will address the number of elders who should lead a church, whether a single pastor or a plurality. But a pressing issue calls for attention at this juncture.

The Limitation of the Office of Elder to Qualified Men

As Alexander Strauch underscores, “no study of church eldership can be considered complete unless it grapples with the critical question of women elders. 1 Timothy emphatically states—within the context of church order, eldership, and deaconship—that women are ‘not . . . to teach or exercise authority over a man.’ The qualifications for eldership rest upon this limiting statement about women in 1 Timothy 2:9–15.”[48] Working from this text, as well as mentioning other arguments, my purpose in this section is to state and support the position—commonly called complementarianism—that only qualified men may exercise the office of elder in the church. A presentation of and interaction with the other position—commonly called egalitarianism[49]—will follow. Finally, I will offer a challenge to the church from the complementarian position.

Before addressing this specific matter, a proper starting point is to note the three great equalities between men and women that are affirmed in Scripture. The first is that men and women alike are created in the image of God; thus, with regard to their personhood, they are equal. This equality is affirmed in the opening chapter of the Bible, in which creation in the image of God is detailed: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27). Human genderedness is a fundamental given of life, a gift of the Creator, and creation as male and female is intended both to reflect the “plurality of being” in the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and to enable human beings to carry out their divinely given mandate: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion . . .” (v. 28). For both procreation and vocation, men and women alike are needed,[50] and so they are equal in terms of their significance and dignity as image-bearers of God.[51]

A second great equality of men and women is their access to God the Father through Jesus Christ the Son and by means of the Holy Spirit. That is, men and women alike may enjoy salvation and the many benefits that accrue from being rightly related to God, a key aspect of which is oneness in Christ and unity in the church. As Paul affirms, “For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26–28).[52] Identification with Christ and his saving work breaks down the usually insurmountable barriers that separate people and provides all of them—specifically, for our purposes, men and women alike—with access to a relationship with God and, consequently, to a relationship of oneness in Christ and unity as members of his church.

A third great equality of men and women is that, as Christ-followers, both are given gifts of the Holy Spirit. There is no gender-specific gift or gifts; men and women alike are given the gifts of leading, teaching, exhorting, faith, giving, prophecy, speaking in tongues, and the rest for the common good and building up of the church (1 Cor. 12:7, 11). Though differences in the exercise of these gifts may be noted in the church, this matter is different from the giving of the gifts of the Spirit to men and women alike.[53]

Thus, men and women share these three great equalities: being created in the image of God, experiencing salvation through Jesus Christ and being united in him, and being endowed with the gifts of the Holy Spirit. This important context forms the atmosphere in which the following discussion of different roles for men and women in the church takes place. And it must be remembered so as to avoid notions of superiority, inferiority, privilege, power, unworthiness, and unfairness that so often and easily characterize the discussion.

THE COMPLEMENTARIAN POSITION

In the midst of his discussion of worship in the church, Paul affirms: “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet” (1 Tim. 2:11–12). The apostle’s instructions are framed by two comments about a woman’s conduct: she is to learn submissively and, rather than teach or exercise authority, she is to remain quiet. Because these two comments enclose Paul’s discussion (vv. 11–12), we understand that he is continuing his instructions about women in the church (beginning in v. 9), specifically as it gathers for worship (beginning in v. 1).[54]

His focus turns to two prohibitions: “I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority.” Andreas Köstenberger, analyzing this particular grammatical construction, notes the structure of Paul’s teaching: it consists of

- a negated finite verb (I do not permit)

- governing an infinitive (to teach)

- which is connected by the coordinating conjunction (or)

- with a second infinitive (to exercise authority).[55]

Köstenberger explains that, based on the pattern of usage of this grammatical construction, Paul had one of two ideas in mind with regard to women teaching and exercising authority. The apostle either (1) views these two activities positively in and of themselves, but then prohibits their exercise by women because of circumstances or conditions spelled out elsewhere in the context; or (2) he views these two activities negatively and consequently prohibits their exercise because they are evil or wrong in and of themselves.[56] In terms of 1 Timothy 2:12, this means there are only two acceptable ways—amplified in the following translations—of rendering the passage: (1) “I do not permit a woman to teach [sound doctrine] or to exercise [rightful] authority over a man”; or (2) “I do not permit a woman to teach [error] or to exercise [usurped, or domineering] authority over a man.” The first rendering is the more plausible understanding of Paul’s intent. Specifically, in the New Testament, διδάσκειν (didaskein; to teach) is consistently viewed as a positive activity (e.g., in the immediate context, 1 Tim. 2:7 [διδάσκαλος; the noun form teacher]; 3:2), and if the apostle had wanted to prohibit women from teaching falsehood, he had a word, ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν (heterodidaskalein), he could have used, as he had done in the opening lines of this letter (“charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine”; 1:3).[57] Thus, Paul’s instructions should be understood as prohibitions against women communicating biblical and theological truth and exercising legitimate authority in the assembly of the church.[58]

Paul prohibits women from exercising what are otherwise good and important activities for two reasons that he details in the following two verses: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (1 Tim. 2:13–14). Paul’s first reason is based on the order of creation. Alluding back to the narrative of the formation of the first man and the first woman (Gen. 2:7, 18–25), he finds significance in the fact that Adam was created first, then Eve. For this reason, he prohibits women from engaging in these two beneficial activities.[59] The second reason is based on the sin of Eve. Alluding back to the narrative of the fall (Gen. 3:1–7), Paul finds significance in the fact that Eve was deceived by Satan and thus sinned, but Adam, though he sinned, was not deceived.[60] As a consequence of Eve’s being tricked by the serpent into disobeying God, Paul prohibits women from engaging in these two vital activities.[61]

Paul’s instructions about women’s quiet learning and submission, and his prohibitions concerning women teaching and exercising authority in the church, prompt several questions: to whom are the women to be submissive? From whom are they to learn? Whose responsibility is it to communicate sound biblical and theological teaching and to exercise authority in the church? Paul’s discussion provokes these questions, and a response to them is provided in his following presentation of church leadership (1 Tim. 3:1–7). In this section, as discussed earlier, he indicates that women (and all the rest of the men) in the church are to be submissive to and learn from the elders, because these qualified men have teaching and governing authority and responsibilities in the church. In the assembly, when men and women gather together to worship, the Lord himself has appointed pastors for the church, and two of their primary activities are communicating sound biblical and theological truth and exercising authority as leaders responsible for the church. They must be qualified men, not women.[62]

Further support for the complementarian position includes the following: first, “the Bible employs an analogy between a human family and the church,” with implications for the relationship between men and women in the church.[63] Poythress articulates the following argument: “Just as husbands and fathers ought to exercise godly leadership in their human families, so wise, mature men ought to be appointed as fatherly leaders in the church (1 Timothy 3:1–7). A particularly important role also belongs to more mature women (1 Timothy 5:9–16; Titus 2:3–5). Like wise mothers of the church, they are to train their spiritual daughters by example and word.”[64] Accordingly, elders of the church are to be drawn from its men who meet specific qualifications, one of which is the demonstrated ability to lead their households (1 Tim. 3:4–5). Women are not to be elders “because such a role would not harmonize with the general relations between men and women in marriage. . . . Thus, the differences between men and women within the context of marriage and family carry over into differences in roles that men and women may assume within the church.”[65] Male leadership in the family means male leadership in the church.

A second line of support, employed by Paul, is a theological one and appeals to the relationship of authority and submission within the Trinity: “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3). The apostle draws an analogy between (1) the subordination of Jesus Christ, the Son, to God the Father, who is his head, or authority; (2) the subordination of every man to Christ, the Lord, who is their head, or authority; and (3) the subordination of a wife to her husband, who is her head, or authority. Admittedly, every aspect of this understanding is challenged, two of which I mention here. One issue is the meaning of the Greek word κεφαλή (kephalē): should it be taken as head, with a concomitant sense of authority, as I understand it here, or as source, with the sense of origin and devoid of any notion of authority?[66] A second issue is the nature of the subordination of the Son to the Father: is it an immanent subordination, with respect to the Son’s eternal relationship to the Father, and an economic (or functional) subordination, with respect to the Son’s role in relation to the Father, as I take it; or is it an ontological subordinationism, with respect to the Son’s nature as being inferior to that of the Father (a heresy condemned ever since the early church denounced it at the Council of Nicea in 325)?[67] Acknowledging (and responding to) these difficulties, complementarians nonetheless affirm that this passage supports a hierarchy in the church of male headship/authority and female submission, a hierarchy that is grounded in the authority and submission within the immanent and economic Trinity.[68] In the immediate context, Paul applies this principle of hierarchy to the proper demeanor of women as they pray and prophesy in the church. Beyond this application, the principle coheres well with the apostle’s limitation of the office of elder, with its teaching and leading responsibilities, to qualified men and not women (1 Tim. 2:11–15).

THE EGALITARIAN POSITION

So we return to that key text, “perceived and treated as the Great Divide in the debate” between complementarians and egalitarians.[69] For advocates of the egalitarian view, the cultural context of this Pauline letter sets the backdrop for a proper interpretation of the passage. This context is commonly considered to be disruptive church worship provoked by certain women of Ephesus (perhaps influenced by false teachers) who taught in an oppressive way so as to gain advantage over the men, a troublesome atmosphere that in turn prompted an angry and disputative response by the men of the Ephesian church.[70] This cultural reconstruction may be tied to the belief that the Ephesian women “were influenced by the cult of Artemis, in which the female was exalted and considered superior to the male.”[71] Lexically, evidence is presented for rendering the very unusual Greek verb αὐθεντεῖν (authentein; 1 Tim. 2:12) as “usurping authority” or “exercising authority in a domineering manner”;[72] accordingly, Linda Belleville translates verse 12 as “I do not permit a woman to teach a man in a dominating way but to have a quiet demeanor.”[73] Syntactically, then, verse 12 consists of

- a negated finite verb (I do not permit)

- governing an infinitive (to teach)

- [nothing is done with the coordinating conjunction (or)]

- which is modified by a second infinitive taken as an adverbial clause (in a domineering way).

The reasons given by Paul for this prohibition (1 Tim. 2:13–14) are adequately explained by the influence of the Artemis cult: “While some may have believed that Artemis appeared first and then her male consort, the true story was just the opposite. For Adam was formed first, then Eve (v. 13). And Eve was deceived to boot (v. 14)—hardly a basis on which to claim superiority.”[74] This reconstruction also clarifies Paul’s affirmation in verse 15: women will be protected or saved through childbirth, “presumably by faith in Christ. Thus they need not look to Artemis as the protector of women as did other Ephesian women who turned to her for safe travel through the childbearing process.”[75] What Paul was attempting to prohibit was “teaching that tries to get the upper hand—not teaching per se.”[76] Accordingly, when women engage in teaching in a proper manner, Paul’s discussion does not operate as a prohibition of this activity.

Variations of this understanding of 1 Timothy 2:11–15 focus, first, on the lack of education for women in the first century; given this context, the apostle Paul denied them the responsibility to teach and exercise authority in the church.[77] Craig Keener finds support for this understanding in Paul’s appeal to Eve’s fall because of deception (1 Tim. 2:14). According to Keener, Eve was deceived because “she was not present when God gave the commandment, and thus was dependent on Adam for the teaching. In other words, she was inadequately educated—like the women in the Ephesian church.”[78] Walter Kaiser wonders, “Could that not have been the reason why ‘the serpent’ took advantage of Eve? She had not walked and talked with God in the garden of Eden as had Adam, so she was at a disadvantage, as later on were the women all over the Mediterranean world who had not been taught.”[79] Once this cultural context changes—that is, once women have access to education and become well equipped for this responsibility, as they may be today—they may indeed teach and exercise authority in the church.[80] A second variation is not making appeal to the Artemis cult as explanatory background material, but to “speculative teaching based on Genesis to advance the claims of women . . . by offering a different understanding of the creation and Fall narrative.”[81] As a corrective to this problem-provoking situation, Paul backs up his prohibition against such illegitimate teaching with the illustration of Eve, who was not created before Adam, but afterward “with the implication that therefore Eve was not superior to him.”[82] A third variation features a link between Eve’s deception by Satan and the false teaching prohibited by Paul.[83] Thus, as I. Howard Marshall reconstructs the Ephesian situation from both the second and third variations, “the women in question were teaching in a way that asserted or expressed their superiority to men rather than teaching sound doctrine in an acceptable manner. There is the strong likelihood that they were drawing false conclusions out of Genesis by following the ‘Jewish myths and genealogies’ (1 Tim. 1:4; cf. Titus 3:9), and this is what triggers Paul’s interpretation of the story of the creation and Fall.”[84]

While taking into consideration and appreciating these variations, I summarize the main idea of the egalitarian perspective on 1 Timothy 2:11–15 as Paul’s corrective of a disturbing situation in the church of Ephesus; given this sinful state of affairs, the apostle bans women from teaching in an oppressive way so as to gain advantage over the men in the church. Because Paul prohibits women from teaching in a domineering manner in a specific context with particular problems, when that context no longer obtains or those problems are resolved, his prohibition is not operative. Qualified women may teach in an appropriate manner; indeed, they may serve as pastors in the church. The Pauline prohibition is not a hindrance to women in this regard.

But this discussion only removes an obstacle to women serving as pastors. Of all the biblical passages to which appeal is made in support of women serving in this way, Galatians 3:28[85] is clearly the most important. Paul Jewett calls this verse “the Magna Carta of humanity”;[86] Christians for Biblical Equality bases its position that “the Bible, properly interpreted, teaches the fundamental equality of men and women of all racial and ethnic groups, all economic classes, and all age groups” on this passage;[87] Rebecca Groothuis’s Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality points to Galatians 3:28 as “probably the most important” passage “of all the texts that support biblical equality.”[88]

While the appeals to this verse differ in substance, they can be classified in the following two ways. The first approach, represented by Paul Jewett, maintains that Galatians 3:28 and its emphasis on equality between men and women, and other passages that emphasize the submission of women to men in the church (and the home as well), are contradictory biblical positions. Taking Galatians 3:28 as affirming “the essential truth that the revelation of God in Christ radically affects one’s view of the man/woman relationship,”[89] Jewett avers that while the New Testament articulates this truth, it does not fully implement it in terms of application in the church, because the New Testament was written in the transition between the old system and the new way of life in Jesus Christ. For example, the apostle Paul considered the male-female issue from the standpoint of a person existing between the two worlds: “So far as he thought in terms of his Jewish background, he thought of the woman as subordinate to the man for whose sake she was created (1 Cor. 11:9). But as far as he thought in terms of the new insight he had gained through the revelation of God in Christ, he thought of the woman as equal to the man in all things, the two having been made one in Christ, in whom there is neither male nor female (Gal. 3:28).”[90] Jewett underscores that these two perspectives are incompatible, with “no satisfying way to harmonize the Pauline argument for female subordination with the larger Christian vision” that he himself originated.[91] He points to Paul’s contradictory statements in 1 Corinthians, in which the apostle promotes women praying and prophesying in the church service (1 Cor. 11:5) yet enjoins silence on women in the church (14:34–35).[92] Given this irresolvable conflict between passages framed from the perspective of the old system and those structured according to the new revelation in Christ, the second set of passages—especially Galatians 3:28—emphasizing equality between men and women is prioritized and preferred.

A second approach is represented by Rebecca Groothuis, with these key elements: (1) Galatians 3:28 underscores the vast difference between the old covenant, with its emphasis on inequality and the privileged position of “free Jewish men,” and the new covenant, with its emphasis on spiritual equality for everyone—Jews and Greeks, slaves and free, male and female.[93] (2) Such spiritual equality not only regards the status of salvation in Christ, but also translates into “equal opportunity to participate in the spiritual and religious life of the community”;[94] thus, no distinctions on the basis of gender may be made when it comes to the office of pastor. (3) Other New Testament passages that address differences between the roles of men and women in the church (and in the home as well) are not universal in their scope but reflect particular first-century cultural contexts. Accordingly, 1 Corinthians 11:2–16; 14:34–40; Ephesians 5:22–33; Colossians 3:18–19; 1 Timothy 2:11–15; and 1 Peter 3:1–7, “which were written in the context of authoritarian, hierarchical society, are taken (or mistaken) to be statements of a universal principle of unilateral female submission to male spiritual authority.”[95] Because the contemporary church exists in such a different cultural context—one of social and gender equality, rather than of hierarchy and submission—these passages are not as applicable today as they were when they were written, whereas Galatians 3:28, because of its principlized nature, is more applicable.[96] (4) Furthermore, Groothuis chastises the complementarian position—men and women are equal in terms of spiritual status yet different in their roles in the church (and in the family as well)—as being contradictory to this verse because “there is a contradiction between the essential, spiritual equality taught in Galatians 3:26–28 and the universal principle of female subordination to male spiritual authority” that complementarians find elsewhere in Scripture.[97] That is, spiritual equality (affirmed in Gal. 3:28) is incompatible with complementarianism’s denial of spiritual opportunities for church ministries of all types to women.

The important role accorded to Galatians 3:28 should not overshadow other arguments made for the inclusion of women in the office of pastor. This support includes, according to Jewett, “the fact that the New Testament itself points beyond this limitation of an all-male apostolate.”[98] Evidence for this trajectory includes several points. First, the resurrected Christ first appeared to women and commissioned them to inform the disciples of his resurrection from the dead (Matt. 28:1–10 and par.); thus, “Under the old covenant, Jesus chose free Jewish males for his apostles. Under the new covenant, women were the first to be commissioned to preach the gospel message.”[99] Second, women were explicitly included in Joel’s promise (Joel 2:28–32)—the fulfillment of which began on Pentecost—that the Holy Spirit would be poured out on “all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy” (Acts 2:17). The actualization of this promise can be seen in the prophetic activity of the four daughters of Philip (Acts 21:9) and the women in the church at Corinth (1 Cor. 11:5). Thus, as the spiritual gift of prophecy is distributed alike to men and women, exclusion of women from ministries in which they may exercise this gift is illegitimate. Third, Paul closely associated himself with outstanding women, including them in his ministry. Two examples are Euodia and Syntyche, praised by the apostle as women who “have labored side by side with me in the gospel” (Phil. 4:3), and Phoebe, the deaconess of the church of Cenchreae, whom Paul commends as a woman who “has been a patron of many and of myself as well” (Rom. 16:1). Other examples include Lydia (Acts 16:13–15) and Nympha (Col. 4:15) who, as patrons of house churches, would have exercised an authoritative role.[100] Fourth, women may have exercised the office of apostleship, as indicated in Paul’s reference to Junia (mentioned with Andronicus) as being “outstanding among the apostles” (Rom. 16:7, NIV, NASB, HCSB) or “prominent among the apostles” (NRSV).[101]

Another argument for women serving as pastors is the priority of gifting by the Holy Spirit over church leadership structures (offices) and gender. Gordon Fee argues for this priority on the basis of three points: (1) the ambiguous nature of the New Testament’s presentation of church structures and ministries; (2) the lack of explicit teaching on gender as it relates to such structures and ministries;[102] and (3) the “evidence that women were involved in ministry that included teaching, especially instructing others in Scripture.”[103] Fee points to women praying and prophesying in the church (1 Cor. 11:4–5; 14:23–33 [esp. vv. 24 and 31]), singing with instruction and admonition in the church (Eph. 5:18–20; Col. 3:16), and explaining Scripture (e.g., Acts 18:26) as support for his third point.[104] He further underscores the absence of appeal by Paul to a leader or leaders who are in charge of worship,[105] offering, “since the New Testament does not teach explicitly that only men lead or serve in certain ways, and in fact seems to leave the door open on this matter . . . the issue should more likely be giftedness, not gender.”[106] The three advantages of this approach, according to Fee, are: (1) “it is less authority driven and more ministry driven,” resulting in all the members of the church ministering to one another;[107] (2) it reverses the order from first gender, then gifts and calling, to first gifts and calling, then gender; and most importantly (3) “it opens the door to the possibility that ministry is a two-way street” as the gender inclusive Holy Spirit gives his gifts to both men and women, “and thus potentially setting the whole body free for all the many parts to minister and in various ways to give leadership to the others.”[108]

A final method that results in affirming women engaging in all the ministries of the church is the eschatological trajectory approach, exemplified by Harper and Metzger, whose “thesis is that if we view the church as a community that is fundamentally eschatological, drawing its future back into the present, we will necessarily move to a more egalitarian philosophy of leadership in the church. . . .”[109] This approach envisions “an eschatological image of the church [that] is essentially egalitarian,”[110] then retroducts, or brings back, that egalitarian future to the present reality of the church.[111] The result is that church leadership now should gradually and cautiously develop in an egalitarian direction to reflect that future reality: “if the community of the future is one where social barriers between men and women are broken down, then they should begin to be broken down in the church now.”[112] A concrete illustration of this point is Paul’s treatment of the situation between the runaway slave Onesimus and his owner Philemon, with the result that “the master/slave relationship is overturned in the church in favor of the egalitarian relationship of brothers.”[113] Application of this point to the church’s present leadership structure is that women may become elders.[114]

RESPONSES TO THE EGALITARIAN POSITION

Responses to these egalitarian arguments are in order, but they must necessarily be brief. The position that Scripture contradicts itself on this issue will be unacceptable to those who affirm its inerrancy.[115] Additionally, the allegedly contradictory passages (e.g., Gal. 3:28 versus 1 Tim. 2:12) actually address different matters (oneness and unity in Christ; the role of women in the church); Scripture does not affirm two mutually exclusive positions on the same issue. Accordingly, the charge of contradiction falls flat.

As for egalitarian discussion of 1 Timothy 2:12, two matters call for attention. The first is the matter of understanding this verse as prohibiting teaching in a domineering manner. The syntactical problem of viewing the second infinitive as an adverbial phrase modifying the first infinitive renders this interpretation highly implausible. Observing the immediate context, we find that Paul commonly modifies infinitives with prepositional phrases (e.g., 1 Tim. 2:4, 8, 9), so the sentence is better understood as the apostle prohibiting two activities, not one—teaching—carried out in an illegitimate way.[116] As for rendering the unusual verb αὐθεντεῖν (authentein) as “usurping authority” or “exercising authority in a domineering manner,” a convincing case is far from being made despite several extensive studies.[117]

But what about the broader passage, 1 Timothy 2:11–15, and the egalitarian position that what is addressed is a particular and narrow situation in the church in Ephesus? Concerning the reconstruction of the cultural context, Marshall is correct both in his admission that the egalitarian position envisions “a complicated background situation” and in his emphasis “that historical situations are seldom simple, and that we must allow for the complexity of human motivation rather than seek for easy explanations in terms of single factors.”[118] But at what point does such background reconstruction move so far from the clues supplied by the biblical text that it enters into the realm of speculation, a perilous foundation upon which to build one’s interpretation? I humbly submit that the envisioned matrix of an influence of the Artemis cult, a misunderstanding of the Genesis narrative, heresy promoted by women, and other elements is a case in point.[119]

Ultimately, the egalitarian position views this section of Scripture negatively. Paul’s prohibition is considered to be a reactive ban directed at a sinful situation, with reasons for the proscription viewed as corrective in nature. But why does one assume that such a prohibition is negative, or seek to reconstruct the background situation in such a way as to justify this negative viewpoint? Why is it not considered as a means of promoting propriety for the church? Indeed, the context is taken up with responsibilities enjoined upon the church: the men have the responsibility to pray (1 Tim. 2:8); the women have responsibility to dress respectfully, modestly, and soberly (2:9–10); the women have the responsibility to learn quietly and submissively (v. 11); the elders have the responsibility to measure up to certain qualifications (3:1–7), as do the deacons and deaconesses (3:8–13). All of this discussion offers detailed instruction on “how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God” (3:15). In keeping with this constructive emphasis, the prohibition of 1 Timothy 2:12, along with its explanations in the following verses (vv. 13–14) and its concluding word of assurance for women (v. 15), should be seen in a positive light. As such, it dictates the proper stance of women with respect to the office of elder in the church today.

Concerning Galatians 3:28, according to Richard Hove the passage addresses this key issue: “How does the arrival of Christ, and the new covenant, affect the old?”[120] Specifically, for our discussion, what changes take place in the relationship between men and women, who are now one in Christ? The issue, therefore, is not equality, but unity; there is no distinction between men and women, because they are all one in Christ.[121] Importantly, “To say that a plurality of groups of people [men and women] are ‘one’ does not mean that the groups are ‘equal’ to each other.”[122] Certainly, an equality is underscored by this passage: “‘men and women are equal in Christ.’ But simply because x and y share something in common—just because they are equal in this one respect—it does not follow that x and y are equal (i.e., the same) in other respects.”[123] As Judith M. Gundry-Volf emphasizes, Paul’s viewpoint in Galatians 3:28 is that “equality does not presuppose all-out sameness (dissolution of femininity or/and masculinity) but sameness in some respects—with respect to sin and with respect to the way of salvation.”[124] Thus, “egalitarians are mistaken when they consider the ‘primary’ focus of this verse as being the horizontal relationships within the Christian community,”[125] with the correlative that no role distinctions may be permitted between men and women in the church office of elder.

Other support for the egalitarian position is embraced by the complementarian position as being instructive as to important ministries of women without making the jump to the conclusion that they should thus be included as elders holding the pastoral office in the church. Women should indeed preach the gospel message (Matt. 28:1–10); pray and prophesy in the church (1 Cor. 11:5) because they are made partakers of the prophetic gift (Acts 2:17–18, citing Joel 2:28–29; exemplified by Philip’s four daughters, Acts 21:9); exhort and admonish the members of the church (Col. 3:16); correct and train underequipped leaders (exemplified by Priscilla, Acts 18:26); associate with the apostles (exemplified by Junia[s], Rom. 16:7);[126] serve as deaconesses (1 Tim. 3:11; exemplified by Phoebe, Rom. 16:1–2); host the church in their homes (exemplified by Lydia, Acts 16:13–15, 40; and Nympha, Col. 4:15);[127] and labor side by side with male leaders for the cause of the gospel (exemplified by Euodia and Syntyche, Phil. 4:3). But involvement in these important activities is one matter; incorporation of women as elders of a church is another matter, and biblical evidence for the former does not translate into evidence for the latter. The prerogative for women to teach and exercise authority, specifically in the office of elder, is not supported by the above-noted evidence for active and important ministries of praying and prophesying in the church, serving as deaconesses, colaboring in the gospel, and the like by women.

That women are strongly endowed by the Holy Spirit with spiritual gifts, including those of teaching and leading, does not stand in opposition to the fact that the same Spirit who grants such gifts to women inspired the portion of Scripture that restricts the office of pastor to qualified men.[128] These two matters—spiritual gifts and church office—are different issues, so no contradiction should be found in the biblical instructions given with respect to both. Neither should one matter—spiritual gifts—be elevated over the other matter—the office of elder—in such a way that the one given higher priority is allowed to blunt the one given lower priority.

Finally, the eschatological trajectory approach treads on dangerous grounds, for several reasons.[129] It fails to appreciate that Scripture, while certainly looking forward to and anticipating the advent of the new creation, provides specific instruction for the church in its present pilgrimage of faith. Retroducting the “age to come”—and its (imagined) implications for eschatological life and (egalitarian) community—back into the present reality, teeters on the brink of overrealized eschatology (the demand for the future now). Moreover, the approach fails to note and must face the challenge that in the biblical discussions of male and female relationships and roles in the church (and in the family), the biblical authors do not look “forward” by means of an appeal to an (imagined) eschatological reality that is egalitarian in nature, but instead refer “backwards” to the creation order and fall as warrant for their “present” instructions and applications.

A CHALLENGE FROM THE COMPLEMENTARIAN POSITION

While the singular point of this discussion of the complementarian and egalitarian positions has been the issue of women exercising the office of pastor in the church, I conclude this section with a challenge to the church from a complementarian viewpoint. It seems to me that many churches that hold to this position either ignore the important roles of women or try to protect themselves from violations of the Pauline ban by erecting hedges around women’s ministries, with the tragic result that women are illegitimately restricted from participation in ministries that are proper for them. To correct this situation, these churches should decide what activities are to be included under the prohibition of women teaching and exercising authority, with particular reference to the office of elder, then allow, encourage, equip, and launch women in all the other ministries. These would include women praying and prophesying in the worship service (1 Cor. 11:5), exhorting and admonishing other members (Col. 3:16), teaching other women and children (Titus 2:3–5), serving as deaconesses (1 Tim. 3:11), and much more. Pastors do well to identify and disciple key women, who will be able to disciple the other women in the church. Elders will seek out and appreciate the wisdom of mature women in the congregation. Opportunities for women to learn—for example, sound doctrine, how to study Scripture, counseling and discipleship, how to lead worship and speak at women’s events—should be regularly provided. Staff (i.e., non-elder) teams should be typified by strong, well-equipped men and women whose synergy results in powerful, fruitful ministries. The church must prepare women for and encourage their wholesale participation in all ministries that do not violate the Pauline prohibition. As the Danvers Statement so clearly articulates,

With half the world’s population outside the reach of indigenous evangelism; with countless other lost people in those societies that have heard the gospel; with the stresses and miseries of sickness, malnutrition, homelessness, illiteracy, ignorance, aging, addiction, crime, incarceration, neuroses, and loneliness, no man or woman who feels a passion from God to make His grace known in word and deed need ever live without a fulfilling ministry for the glory of Christ and the good of this fallen world (1 Cor. 12:7–21).[130]

THE OFFICE OF DEACON/DEACONESS

The Office of Service

The second office in the church is the diaconate, which is distinguished from the office of bishop (elder/pastor) in Philippians 1:1.[131] From the Greek word διακονία (diakonia), commonly translated “service,” the diaconate is the office of service or ministry in the church; the person who so serves is called a “deacon” (διάκονος; diakonos). To distinguish men and women who serve in the church, the two terms “deacons” and “deaconesses” are often used. In some churches and denominations, these terms are used generically to refer to anyone and everyone who engages in some kind of service, while in other contexts, these words are technical terms used to refer to people who have been publicly recognized as officers serving in the church. I will first discuss the general notion of the diaconate and then turn to a more detailed discussion of the actual qualifications and responsibilities of this church office. I will then address the issue of whether both men and women may serve as deacons.

As noted above, at the heart of the diaconate is the simple idea of service;[132] indeed, the apostle Paul speaks of “servants who serve well” (1 Tim. 3:13, literal translation). If the office of elder is dedicated to the work of teaching, leading, praying, and shepherding, then the diaconate is devoted to serving in all other areas of the church.

Commonly, the office of deacon is viewed as originating in the dangerous squabble that erupted in the Church of Jerusalem between Aramaic-speaking Jews who were natives of Palestine and Greek-speaking Jews from the Dispersion. According to Luke’s account in Acts 6:1–7, the widows of the latter group were overlooked in the daily distribution of food. This conflict was serious because it threatened to disrupt the deeply held and highly beneficial unity that characterized the early church (Acts 2:42–47; 4:32–36; 5:12–16). Concluding that, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables,” the apostles directed the church to “pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word” (Acts 6:2–4). According to the popular interpretation of this passage, the seven men who met the qualifications and were ordained by the apostles for the service of waiting on tables became the first deacons in the church.[133] The implication usually drawn from this decision is that deacons are to be involved in the physical and temporal needs of the church, while elders are to be devoted to spiritual matters.

Certainly, this time-honored interpretation is plausible and has many advocates. Caution is urged, however, for the following reasons: first, appealing to the occurrence of words in this passage associated with the office of deacon does not accomplish what one may think it does. Lexically, the word “deacon” (διάκονος; diakonos) does not occur in this passage, though both the cognate noun “service” or “ministry” (διακονία; diakonia) and the cognate verb “to minister” or “to serve” (διακονεῖν; diakonein) do occur: the Hellenist widows were being neglected in the “service” of food distribution (diakonia; Acts 6:1), and the apostles would not be deterred from their “ministry” of teaching the Word of God (diakonia; v. 4) to “serve” tables (diakonein; v. 2). Building on the fact that meaning is conveyed not by a word in isolation but by a phrase or a sentence, the specific service or ministry envisioned cannot be determined solely from the word “service” or “ministry” alone; whether one intends the ministry of distributing food/waiting on tables or the ministry of the Word depends on other words in the context. Transposing the discussion slightly, one could be a “deacon” of some physical task or a “deacon” of some spiritual work. Accordingly, the mere presence of words associated with the diaconate as the office of service does not support the traditional interpretation.

Second, continuing one’s reading of the book of Acts, one soon discovers that two of the men selected and ordained as the so-called deacons appear in the narrative engaging in activities that are far removed from what is typically considered as “deacon work”: Stephen “was doing great wonders and signs among the people” while preaching the gospel and became the first martyr for the Christian faith (Acts 6:8–7:60), and Philip engaged in exorcisms of demons and healings while proclaiming Jesus Christ as an evangelist among the Samaritans (8:4–13) and with the Ethiopian eunuch (vv. 26–40).

Both of these considerations urge caution in reading Acts 6 as the origination of the church office of deacon, with the correlative division of church ministry into spiritual matters reserved for pastors or elders and physical and temporal needs that fall under the purview of deacons. Such a tidy division seems an ecclesiastical imposition on the text of Acts 6 instead of solid interpretation.

Qualifications and Responsibilities

The issue of the responsibilities of deacons still demands attention. Some help is forthcoming from the list of qualifications for the office:

Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. (1 Tim. 3:8–13)

Structurally, Paul begins his description of diaconal qualifications with some general characteristics of all servants (vv. 8–10), turns briefly to a specific discussion of women—either wives of deacons or deaconesses—and their qualifications (v. 11), turns to the household requirements for male deacons (v. 12), and concludes with a commendation for all servants of Jesus Christ (v. 13).

When compared with the list of qualifications for the office of elder, this list contains both similarities and differences. As for overlapping characteristics, deacons must be dignified, of noble character, and not double-tongued, engaging in duplicitous speech so as to deceive people; moreover, they are to meet certain requirements regarding their families. Furthermore, just like elders, deacons are prohibited from being addicted to much wine and greedy for dishonest gain. These are the similarities.

As for differences in qualifications (which intersect with the responsibilities of deacons), this list lacks the requirement of being able to teach (1 Tim. 3:2).[134] The association of teaching with elders or pastors of the church (1 Tim. 5:17; Eph. 4:11) implies that this ministry is not a primary responsibility of deacons, whose qualifications do not include teaching ability. Also, though deacons, like elders, must prove their ability to manage their own households well (1 Tim. 3:4, 12), they are not given the responsibility to take care of God’s church (1 Tim. 3:5), as are elders. The managerial abilities of deacons are to be directed toward serving well (1 Tim. 3:13).[135] Furthermore, the association of leading and shepherding with elders or pastors (1 Tim. 5:17; 1 Pet. 5:2) implies that these two activities are not the primary responsibilities of deacons. Moreover, the responsibility for praying for the sick is explicitly given to the elders (James 5:13–15); this indicates that at least this specific type of prayer is not a primary responsibility of deacons. Thus, teaching, leading, praying, and shepherding are the responsibilities of the elders of the church. Apparently, then, all other avenues of service in the church are available to deacons, who must also be tested first before they are allowed to serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless.[136]

The Accessibility of the Office of Deacon to Both Men and Women (Deaconesses)

If the above presentation is correct, then both men and women may serve the church in this office. The office of deaconess may be expressed in the midst of Paul’s list of qualifications for deacons; he directs that “their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things” (1 Tim. 3:11). The opening word of this sentence (γυναῖκας; gunaikas) may be variously translated as “their wives” (ESV, KJV, NKJV, NIV [1984]), referring to the wives of deacons, or as “women” (NASB) or “the women” (NIV [2011], RSV), referring to women deacons or deaconesses.[137]

In favor of the first view are the following points: (1) Paul is discussing at length (1 Tim. 3:8–13) the office of deacon, and it would be highly unusual for him to interrupt his sustained discussion and switch to a new topic regarding women deacons. (2) We would expect more than one verse to be dedicated to such an important topic as women deacons. After all, Paul devotes seven verses to the office of elder (3:1–7) and nearly as many to the office of deacon (3:8–13). Would it not follow, then, that his discussion of the office of deaconess would be of similar substantive length? (3) The use of the word γυνή (gunē, singular) in an earlier (yet textually close) context (3:2), as well as its use in the very next sentence (3:12), demands that it be understood as referring to “wives” (in 3:2, the wife of an elder; in 3:12, the wife of a deacon). Thus, in keeping with the immediate context, the word should be understood as referring to the “wives” of deacons in this verse. (4) If wives accompany their “deacon husbands” in their serving ministries, then it would be very appropriate for Paul to provide a short list of qualifications for “their wives.”

In favor of the second perspective are the following points: (1) in verse 11, the word translated “likewise” (ὡσαύτως [hōsautōs]; the same word as in verse 8 at the opening of Paul’s discussion of the office of deacon) directs our attention back to verse 2 to supply the verb that governs the entire discussion. Specifically, in the flow of Paul’s instructions about church leadership (1 Tim. 3:1–13), he begins with elders; they “must be” (δει . . . εἶναι; the Greek words dei . . . einai occur in v. 2) a certain type of person. Paul next moves to deacons; “likewise,” they “must be” (the Greek words dei . . . einai are not found in v. 8, but are supplied in translations) a certain type of person. He then moves to deaconesses; “likewise,” they “must be” (the Greek words dei . . . einai are is not found in v. 11, but are supplied in translations) a certain type of person. This structure indicates that Paul is listing and describing different groups: elders, deacons, and deaconesses. (2) The list Paul supplies is like the other lists in the immediate context and thus is naturally taken as expressing the qualifications for a church office. Moreover, the strong parallels between this list for deaconesses and the list for deacons—both must be “dignified,” careful with their words, sober rather than addicted, and “faithful” to “the faith”—reinforce that this is a list of qualifications for women deacons. Because Paul has already covered the similar qualifications for men deacons, he only needs a brief mention of the qualifications for female deacons.[138]

(3) Had Paul wanted to indicate that he was talking about wives, he could have used a prepositional expression (wives “of deacons”; in Greek, a noun in the genitive case) or a personal pronoun (“their” wives).[139] The fact that he does not make this indication supports the view that he is addressing women deacons. Indeed, his switch from a discussion about deacons to a discussion about deaconesses parallels an earlier move (1 Tim. 2:8–9) from a discussion of men (“I desire then that in every place men [ἄνδρας; andras] should pray”; v. 8) to a discussion of women (“likewise also that women [γυναῖκας; gunaikas] should adorn themselves in respectable apparel”; v. 9). In both contexts Paul used γυναῖκας (gunaikas) to indicate the switch. Thus, in 2:8–9 he addresses men in terms of their praying and women in terms of their clothing; in 3:8–11 he addresses male deacons in terms of their qualifications and women deacons in terms of their qualifications. (4) The absence of a list of qualifications for the wives of elders seems to favor the view that Paul is addressing deaconesses. “It seems quite strange that he would give the requirements for wives of deacons but not the wives of elders, particularly because elders have more responsibility. But this problem is avoided if Paul refers here to deaconesses.”[140] (5) Alert readers will wonder why Paul does not just use the term “deaconesses”; this would have cleared up all questions about whether he was referring to women deacons or wives of deacons. At the time Paul wrote, there was no word for deaconesses (the Greek feminine noun διάκοναι [diakonai]); thus, he used the generic word γυναῖκας (gunaikas) translated “women” or “wives.”[141] (6) Both interpretations must deal with the interruptive character of verse 11; it is as much a problem for the one interpretation as for the other. Both views must acknowledge that Paul addresses deacons in the preceding verses (3:8–10), suddenly switches (according to the first view) to a discussion of their wives or (according to the second view) to a discussion of women deacons (v. 11), and then returns to the matter of deacons (vv. 12–13).

On the whole, I consider the support for the second viewpoint to be stronger: the grammatical construction using “likewise” indicates a discussion of an office; the list presents qualifications for that office; and the ease with which Paul could have used a prepositional phrase if he had wished to indicate a reference to wives (“of deacons”; in Greek, a noun in the genitive case), together with the curious absence of a corresponding treatment of elders’ wives, points away from verse 11 being a discussion of deacons’ wives.[142] Thus, I believe that Paul is listing the qualifications for the office of women deacons or deaconesses, one of whom may be referenced in the following: “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant (διάκονος; diakonos) of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well” (Rom. 16:1–2).[143]

Like their male counterparts, deaconesses do not have responsibilities to teach, lead, pray for the sick, and shepherd the church; those are the primary responsibilities of the elders. Accordingly, deaconesses do not violate the Pauline prohibitions in 1 Timothy 2:12. Deacons and deaconesses, by contrast with and as complementary to elders, engage in all the other areas of service in the church.[144] Practically speaking, deacons and deaconesses engage in men’s ministries, women’s ministries, youth ministries, children’s ministries, worship ministries, evangelism and missions, bereavement ministries, seniors ministries, singles ministries, sports ministries, fine arts ministries, mercy ministries (e.g., food, clothing, tutoring, medical aid), and the like.[145] Because these ministries flow out of the office of deacon, those who serve in that office as deacons and deaconesses must possess and exercise the requisite authority to carry out their ministries. Their sphere of responsibility with concomitant authority is not the same sphere of responsibility and authority as that of the elders, nor that of the congregation. But they do possess and exercise appropriate authority for their office and, as Paul concludes his discussion of deacons and deaconesses, “those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 3:13).[146]

In summary, the church is to be governed by two offices: the office of elder and the office of deacon. The first, exercised by qualified men, is responsible for teaching, leading, praying (especially for the sick), and shepherding; the second, served by qualified men and women, is responsible for all the other ministries of the church. But this discussion on offices is only part of the overall topic of governance. It is to different models of church government that I now turn.

___________________

[1]Luke’s list of the disciples who gathered together in the upper room in Jerusalem, in comparison with the list of the original disciples in his Gospel, is poignantly missing the name of Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:12–13).

[2]Note should be made of Jeremias’s contention that the material in 1 Corinthians 15:3–6 is of Aramaic origin and hence not original with Paul. Whether or not there was an original Aramaic source (or some other traditional material) upon which Paul depended, the fact remains that the early church acknowledged the apostolic group as “the Twelve” (Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, trans. Arnold Ehrhardt [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955], 67, 129–130).

[3]Cf. Paul’s own attestation: Romans 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; 1 Timothy 1:1, 12; 2 Timothy 1:1.

[4]By Paul’s own admission, this appearance was outside of the chronological framework of all other post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, having taken place after Jesus’ ascension (1 Cor. 15:8). He also underscored that his was the last appearance of Jesus. That is, the next time anyone will see Jesus physically on earth is at his second coming.

[5]I do not think that Silvanus/Silas and Timothy should be considered apostles. Though Paul does write his letter to the Thessalonians in conjunction with them (1 Thess. 1:1), his plural reference later in the letter (“though we could have made demands as apostles of Christ”; 2:6) may be an instance of an “epistolary plural”; that is, he refers to himself in the first person plural (“we”) without including those other two men with him as apostles. Two other examples of this literary convention occur in the context of this verse: 1 Thessalonians 2:2, which refers to an event of persecution and evangelistic preaching in which Paul and Silas, but not Timothy, were involved (Acts 16:19–40); and 1 Thessalonians 3:1–2. Clearly, Timothy is not included in the “we” of this section. And it is doubtful that Silas is included, because a bit later, Paul refers to his extreme loneliness (1 Thess. 3:5) and uses the singular. His heightened sense of isolation makes more sense if Silas was not with him; thus, “we were willing to be left behind at Athens” refers to Paul alone. These two clear cases of Paul’s use of the epistolary plural in 1 Thessalonians support the conclusion that in 1 Thessalonians 2:6 Paul refers to himself in the plural and does not include Silvanus/Silas and Timothy as apostles. Cf. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 909–910. Furthermore, evidence elsewhere, particularly with respect to Timothy, favors seeing these two disciples as missionary companions and/or legates of the apostles rather than as apostles on par with the others (e.g., Acts 15:22–23; 2 Cor. 1:19; 1 Tim. 1:3; 3:14; 4:13; 1 Pet. 5:12).

[6]I do not think that Epaphroditus should be considered an apostle. The term ἀπόστολος (apostolos) is used in conjunction with him (Phil. 2:25), but this seems to be a case of the broad connotation of the Greek word, as it appears in the ESV: “messenger.” Support for this understanding is the fact that Paul describes Epaphroditus as “my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier,” then with reference to the Philippians, adds that he is “your messenger and minister to my need.” It appears that Epaphroditus was sent by the church of Philippi to help the apostle Paul, but was not himself an apostle.

[7]The interpretive problems in Romans 16:7 make any conclusion about the apostleship of Andronicus and Junia(s) unsure. See note 126 for further discussion.

[8]Interestingly, the church in Rome was established fairly soon after the Holy Spirit’s descent on the day of Pentecost, perhaps by the pilgrims in Jerusalem who heard Peter’s first sermon and then returned to Rome. Clearly, this was decades prior to the arrival of the apostles Peter and Paul (who did write a letter to the church in anticipation of a forthcoming visit; Rom. 15:22–33), whom the Catholic Church considers to be the founders of the Church of Rome. Reputable tradition places the two apostles in Rome in the first half of the 60s, at which point they were martyred there. Other early writings record visits to India by the apostles Thomas (Acts of Thomas, 1) and Bartholomew (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 5.10).

[9]Anthony C. Thiselton, The Hermeneutics of Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 501. He references Bengt Holmberg, Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles (Lund, Sweden: Gleerup, 1978), 204–207.

[10]P. T. Forsyth, The Church, the Gospel, and Society (London: Independent Press, 1962), 63.

[11]Thiselton, Hermeneutics of Doctrine, 501. He references Ernest Best, “Paul’s Apostolic Authority,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27 (1986): 3–25; and Anthony Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; and Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Paternoster, 2000), 673 (emphasis his).

[12]An example of this is infant baptism, which Origen claimed was an apostolic practice: “The church has received a tradition from the apostles to give baptism even to little children” (Origen, Commentary on Romans 5.9.3, in Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, trans. Thomas P. Scheck, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation [Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2001], 1:367).

[13]Thiselton, Hermeneutics of Doctrine, 502 (emphasis removed). He references James D. Smart, The Strange Silence of the Birth of the Church (London: SCM, 1970), 25.

[14]I allow that someone could respond, “They could serve apostolic purposes by performing signs and wonders and miraculous works while starting churches among unreached people groups.” I could perhaps even be persuaded to call such potent pioneers of the gospel of Jesus Christ “apostles” in the broad sense of that word. But such are far from the so-called apostles of whom I am aware today. And given several passages of Scripture that use the term “apostle” in a generic sense to refer to messengers (e.g., John 13:16; Phil. 2:25; 2 Cor. 8:23), I can appreciate Calvin’s comment that, though the office of apostle was not intended to be a permanent church office but was for its early existence only, “I do not deny that the Lord has sometimes at a later period raised up apostles, or at least evangelists in their place, as has happened in our own day.” His reference was to Martin Luther, whom elsewhere he commended as “a distinguished apostle of Christ by whose ministry the light of the gospel has shone” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960], 4.3.4). The editorial footnote references Calvin’s commendation of Luther in John Calvin, Defensio adversus Pighium, Corpus Reformatum 6.250. J. Rodman Williams also justifies the continuation of apostles today by appeal to Ephesians 4:11 (J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology: Systematic Theology from a Charismatic Perspective, 3 vols. in 1 [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996], 3:165–170).

[15]For simplicity’s sake, I will interchangeably refer to the offices and those who hold them as eldership and elder, and diaconate and deacon.

[16]Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Volume 1: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1–2 Timothy, and 1–3 John (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 108. For a brief history of the Jewish eldership, see Roger Beckwith, Elders in Every City: The Origin and Role of the Ordained Ministry (Carlisle, Cumbria, UK; and Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2003), 28–41; James Tunstead Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church: Public Services and Offices in the Earliest Christian Communities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 228–233. Speaking of the church and the synagogue, Burtchaell summarizes, “Both had presbyteroi = elders. But that was an institution and a title so ancient and so culturally universal that it could carry no suspicion of Jewish copyright. In general, the churches were so thorough in avoiding mainstream Jewish terminology that one might see an intended break with the past.” Still, he maintains some overlap between the Jewish eldership and the office of elder in the early church: “thus more of a junction than a break with the past” (ibid., 344).

[17]Benjamin L. Merkle, The Elder and Overseer: One Office in the Early Church, Studies in Biblical Literature (New York: Peter Lang, 2003). Merkle’s excellent work is a defense of the synonymy of the terms elder and overseer in the New Testament; thus, the two interchangeable words refer to one and not two offices.

[18]This same interchangeability of the two terms continued in the early church’s use of elders and bishops (Clement of Rome, The Letter of the Romans to the Corinthians 44 [ANF 1:17], in The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, ed. Michael W. Holmes [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999], 76–79; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.2 and 3.2 [ANF 1:415]; and Cyprian, Letter 40.1 [ANF 5:319] and Letter 5.4 [ANF 5:283]). As late as the end of the fourth century, Jerome argued for the equivalency of the terms: Jerome, Letter 146 To Evangelus 1–2 (NPNF^2 6:289); and Letter 69 To Oceanus 3 (NPNF^2 6:143).

[19]As Beckwith notes, “the pastor-teachers are hard to distinguish from the ordained presbyter-bishops, who have precisely those two functions, of pastoral rule and teaching, assigned to them in the Pastoral Epistles” (Beckwith, Elders in Every City, 16; cf. Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, 296–297).

[20]Two early lists of qualifications for this office are the Didache (which presents the same qualifications for both bishops and deacons) and a letter of Polycarp (Didache 15 [ANF 7:381], in Apostolic Fathers, 265–266; The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians 6 [ANF 1:34], in Apostolic Fathers, 212–213).

[21]Besides the many excellent commentaries available on these passages, see also the discussion in Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, 2nd ed. (Littleton, CO: Lewis & Roth, 1988), 166–206.

[22]The masculine references throughout this discussion of qualifications for the office of elder are intentional, and the case that only qualified men may be elders will be made later in the chapter.

[23]The words ἀνεπίλημπτος (anepilēmptos; 1 Tim. 3:2) and ἀνέγκλητος (anegklētos; Titus 1:6, 7) are synonyms (I. Howard Marshall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, ICC [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999], 154; Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, NICNT [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006], 678).

[24]Marshall, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, 155–156.

[25]John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, trans. William Pringle, Calvin’s Commentaries, vol. 21 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 292

[26]Craig S. Keener, . . . And Marries Another (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 87ff.

[27]The two expressions—μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα (mias gunaikos andra; “husband of one wife”) and ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή (henos andros gunē; “wife of one husband”)—are grammatically parallel; therefore, the one expression provides help with understanding the other expression.

[28]Marshall, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, 156.

[29]This is what Paul seems to be saying with his instruction that, “if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved” (1 Cor. 7:15); that is, he or she is not bound anymore to the marriage. These scenarios prompt serious reflection on this issue of divorce and potential candidacy for eldership. In the case of a candidate who presents himself for the office and having been divorced before becoming a Christ-follower, such a divorce cannot automatically disqualify him. In the case in which the potential elder went through a divorce either because his wife (Christian or not) committed adultery and the marriage was impossible to repair, or because his nonbelieving wife abandoned him, such a divorce cannot automatically disqualify the man. It could be argued that if a man, as a new or backslidden Christian, divorced but later repented of his sinful choice, remarried, and then demonstrated his repentance through the stellar quality of his new marriage, he could still be considered for the office of elder. In this case, his faithful relationship with his current wife indicates that he does indeed qualify as “the husband of one wife,” which (like all the other items in Paul’s list) is a qualification regarding his present situation in life. So as not to be misunderstood, I am not saying that a background of divorce should have no bearing on the church’s consideration of a candidate for pastoral office; on the contrary, it must be given serious consideration before the person is recommended for the office of elder. What I am saying is that a divorce does not automatically disqualify a candidate from the position. For the various positions on this important matter, see H. Wayne House, Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1990); Mark L. Strauss, Remarriage after Divorce in Today’s Church: Three Views (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006); David Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Church: Biblical Solutions for Pastoral Realities (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006); John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World, 2nd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 583–633.

[30]“In the Roman Empire the dangers of travel, poor conditions of inns, and pressures on Christians who often existed as refugees made hospitality indispensable for the church” (Marshall, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, 163).

[31]The prohibition against fathers provoking their children to anger and discouragement (Eph. 6:4; Col. 3:21) dovetails well with the prohibitions against elders being violent and quarrelsome. The positive instruction for fathers to raise up their children “in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4) interfaces well with the qualification that elders must be able to teach. The phrase “with all dignity” (1 Tim. 3:4) modifies how the father manages his household rather than qualifying how the children submit to him.

[32]A point may be reached in the children’s development in which they make poor choices in disobeying their father/elder and rebelling against the Lord. At this juncture, it is right for his fellow elders to discuss with him their concern for this waywardness and address this qualification for eldership. On the one hand, a determination may be made that his children’s choices are ones for which they are responsible and which do not reflect negatively on their father; thus, he has not disqualified himself from church leadership. On the other hand, it may be determined that the children’s rebelliousness is a clear result of their father’s poor leadership; in this case, he has disqualified himself from church leadership and should be asked to step down or be removed from office.

[33]This interpretation of the expression “the condemnation of the devil” understands the genitive (“of the devil”) to be an objective genitive (i.e., the condemnation into which the devil fell as a result of his pride) rather than a subjective genitive (i.e., the condemnation that the devil metes out to the prideful elder).

[34]This interpretation of the expression “the snare of the devil” understands the genitive (“of the devil”) to be a subjective genitive (i.e., the snare in which the devil entraps the hypocritical elder) rather than an objective genitive (i.e., the snare in which the devil was entrapped). Cf. 2 Timothy 2:26.

[35]Donald M. Macdonald, “Leadership in the Church,” in The People’s Theologian: Writings in Honour of Donald Macleod, ed. Iain D. Campbell and Malcolm Maclean (Fearn, Ross-shire, UK: Mentor/Christian Focus, 2011), 285.

[36]The emphasis on “sound doctrine” in the Pastoral Epistles was clearly prompted by the precipitous rise of false doctrine only several decades after the beginning of the church (1 Tim. 1:3; 6:3; 2 Tim. 4:2–4).

[37]This indicates that although all elders must be able to teach, not all elders will necessarily engage in teaching on a regular basis.

[38]H. Wayne House calls them “women elders of women,” not in the sense that these women may hold the office of elder, but that they bear the specific divinely given responsibility—like the male elders generally over the entire church—to teach, guide, mentor, and shepherd the younger women in the church (H. Wayne House, “Principles to Use in Establishing Women in Ministry,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991], 362).

[39]In the Shepherd of Hermas, the expression “the elders who preside over the church” links the office of elder with the responsibility to lead the church (Shepherd of Hermas 2.8 [ANF 2:12], in Apostolic Fathers, 346–347).

[40]These should be spelled out in the church’s constitution or governing document.

[41]Excellent commentaries on this passage include: Douglas J. Moo, James, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985); idem, The Letter of James, PNTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000); Sophie Laws, The Epistle of James, Harper’s New Testament Commentaries (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1980); Peter H. Davids, The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992); Luke Timothy Johnson, The Letter of James: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 37A (New York: Doubleday, 1995); Dan G. McCartney, James, BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009); Craig L Blomberg and Mariam J. Kamell, James, ZECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008); Christopher W. Morgan, A Theology of James: Wisdom for God’s People, Explorations in Biblical Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2010).

[42]I understand the anointing with oil to be symbolic, not medicinal or sacramental. The medicinal interpretation takes the oil to be a balm that brings about the healing. The sacramental interpretation is best seen in the Catholic “sacrament of the anointing of the sick” (also called “last rites” and “extreme unction”). See Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday/Image Books, 1995), 1499–1532. The symbolic interpretation, which I favor, finds support in the practice of anointing people with oil as a sign of dedication to God for a specific purpose or task. As for the type of oil to be used, James does not specify; given the (agri)cultural context of the letter, olive oil was most likely used. When I have been involved in this elder responsibility, one of our men took a small amount of olive oil from a small bottle used exclusively for this ministry and marked the sign of a cross on the sick person’s forehead.

[43]The practice of praying for and/or consecrating people with the laying on of hands finds biblical support: Mark 10:16; Acts 8:18; 9:17; 1 Timothy 5:22; 2 Timothy 1:6; Hebrews 6:2.

[44]According to James, all prayer is to be offered in faith (James 1:5–8). But his instructions in both 1:5–8 and 5:15 underscore the possibility of falling short in this matter. So the elders must engage in their responsibility believing God for healing. It has been my practice to ask elders who do not or cannot believe that God may heal through our prayer for the sick to dismiss themselves from the time of prayer and simply observe what takes place. I also assure them that their self-dismissal should be of no embarrassment to them; rather, it gives them an opportunity to observe the practice in which, on another occasion when they can pray in faith, they may participate.

[45]The expression “if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven” (James 5:15) is a third-class conditional; there is uncertainty with respect to the commission of sin. One should not assume, therefore, that the person is sick because of personal sin.

[46]Cf. Strauch, Biblical Eldership, 63–71.

[47]The word “overseers” (episkopoi) appears in this text, so I could have discussed this passage under the second elder responsibility of leading. At the same time, Paul’s message instructs these overseers to care for “the flock” (used two times), so I have opted to treat this text under the shepherding task.

[48]Strauch, Biblical Eldership, 208. More discussion of this key passage is forthcoming.

[49]The intensity of this debate continues, and one area in which it manifests itself is the nomenclature for the two positions. As with most names or titles, the word or words used cannot exhaustively describe the designated positions; add to this the fact that names or titles are patient of misunderstanding. But I find unhelpful, if not also somewhat inflammatory, the substitution of other terms by opponents when referencing the position against which they stand. In this section I will use the titles most commonly associated with the two positions—which are also the titles preferred by the proponents of those positions—which are adequately, if not perfectly, described by the terms complementarianism and egalitarianism. As an example, see James R. Beck and Craig L. Blomberg, eds., Two Views on Women in Ministry (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001).

[50]Accordingly, when the complaint of inconsistency is lodged against the complementarian position—it affirms authority and submission within the husband-wife relationship and in certain relationships within the church, but does not do so in terms of society at large—the complaint fails to note that the equality (i.e., no authority and submission) of men and women in terms of their responsibility for civilization building is established by the Genesis 1 narrative, but the relationships of hierarchy in the family and in the church are established by the Genesis 2 narrative, as evidenced by the apostle Paul’s appeals to Genesis 2 as the foundation for his discussions in 1 Corinthians 11:8–9 and 1 Timothy 2:13. See below for further discussion. For an example of this misguided complaint, see I. Howard Marshall, “Women in Ministry: A Further Look at 1 Timothy 2,” in Women, Ministry, and the Gospel: Exploring New Paradigms, ed. Mark Husbands and Timothy Larsen (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007), 74.

[51]Paul’s affirmation that a man “is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man” (1 Cor. 11:7) is not a denial that women are created in the image of God. The point of the discussion focuses on the relationship between man and woman, not between God and woman. How is she “the glory of man?” In two ways (with corresponding allusions to Genesis 2): woman was made from man (Gen. 2:21–23); therefore, she is meant to be his glory. And woman was created for man (Gen. 2:18–20); therefore, she is meant to be his glory. This concentration on woman’s relationship to man in no way implies that she is not the image of God. Thus, my explication of the complementarian position does not fall into the trouble critiqued by Stanley J. Grenz, “Anticipating God’s New Community: Theological Foundations for Women in Ministry,” JETS 38/4 (December 1995): 600–601.

[52]More will be said about this key passage later in my discussion.

[53]Some accuse complementarians of being inconsistent in affirming that women may possess the gift of teaching but may not exercise that gift in the office of elder. But the two matters are certainly different: one has to do with a Spirit-given ability, a personal capacity to engage in the communication of biblical and theological truth; the other, with a particular realm of engaging in such communication. For example, a person may possess finely honed skills of jurisprudence or financial advising yet, because she is licensed as a lawyer or a financial advisor in the state of Kentucky but not in Minnesota, may practice law or provide financial counsel in the first state but not the second. No inconsistency exists here.

[54]I will not deal with radical feminist interaction with this passage. For an example, see Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins, 10th ed. (Chestnut Ridge, NY: Crossroad, 1994), 260–266, 285–342.

[55]Andreas J. Köstenberger, “A Complex Sentence Structure in 1 Timothy 2:12,” in Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 54.

[56]Ibid., 57, 71–74. To give an example of both: (1) A doctor prohibits a diabetic from drinking regular Coke or eating a candy bar. In and of themselves, there is nothing wrong with consuming either this beverage or this candy. But the doctor prohibits their consumption in the particular case of a diabetic because they will raise his blood sugar level and provoke complications for his health. (2) A doctor prohibits a teenager from cutting herself or forcing herself to vomit after eating. In and of themselves, both activities are dangerous to a person’s health and thus are prohibited.

[57]Ibid., 61–62. In that same section, Köstenberger responds to an objection raised by Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11–15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1991), 81.

[58]Köstenberger’s position is critiqued by Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 337–359; Kroeger and Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman, 83–84, 189–192; I. Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999), 454–460.

[59]This passage is not the only time that Paul alludes to this early chapter of Genesis to find support for his teaching on the relationship of authority and submission between men and women in the church. In 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, he underscores the importance of the manner of creation (“for man was not made from woman, but woman from man”; 1 Cor. 11:8, alluding to Gen. 2:21–22, 23) and the purpose of creation (“neither was man created for the woman, but woman for man”; 1 Cor. 11:9, alluding to Gen. 2:18, 20).

[60]Despite Paul’s affirmation that “Adam was not deceived” (1 Tim. 2:14), Marshall comments: “It is splitting hairs to say that Adam was not deceived. He fell to the temptation posed by his wife, just as she fell to the temptation by the serpent. The point is simply that Eve was not immune to temptation; in fact she sinned before her husband! . . . It is simply a warning that all of us, including women, are open to temptation and fall to it” (Marshall, “Women in Ministry,” 64–65). This interpretation does not give adequate attention to what Paul affirms about Eve’s deception and Adam’s lack of deception, and thus misses the point of the apostle’s appeal to this event.

[61]Paul does not seem to indicate that women are more likely to be deceived than are men; thus, he does not prohibit them from teaching and exercising authority in the church on this basis of any greater susceptibility. Rather, he focuses on the one sin of the first woman and links his prohibition of all women engaging in these two activities to Eve’s being deceived. If someone should object that the consequence seems too harsh for the act, one should remember that the entire human race was plunged into guilt and corruption through the one sin of the first man (Rom. 5:12–21). Keeping with one of his themes in these Pastoral Letters, Paul concludes his discussion with a word of assurance to all women (1 Tim. 2:15): unlike Eve, who fell prey to the treachery of Satan (whose nefarious work is thematized in 1 Tim. 1:20; 3:6–7; 4:1; 5:14–15; 2 Tim. 2:26), women who live out their divinely designed roles as mothers, giving birth to and raising godly children while managing their households well (1 Tim. 5:14; Titus 2:3–5; exemplified in Proverbs 31) and maintaining stellar Christian qualities (“if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control”) have no need to fear the onslaughts of the evil one; rather, “she will be saved” or preserved from Satanic attack through these vocations and virtues. For further discussion, see Andreas J. Köstenberger, “Ascertaining Women’s God-Ordained Roles: An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:15,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 7 (1997): 107–144. For an alternative interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:15, see Marshall, “Women in Ministry,” 60.

[62]Of importance in this discussion is Köstenberger’s assessment of Craig Blomberg’s contention that 1 Timothy 2:12 clearly restricts women from serving “in the office that epitomizes teaching and ruling authority”—i.e., the office of elder. Continuing, Köstenberger notes that this position may be “unduly minimalistic” in light of Paul’s appeals to Old Testament Scripture in vv. 13–14, which “seem to suggest that 1 Timothy 2:12 is grounded in more foundational realities than a mere surface prohibition of women occupying a given office. For this reason a more nuanced application of the passage seems to be needed.” In other words, Paul’s instructions may be applied to restricting women not only from the office but also from engaging in other teaching and leading roles in the church as well. As my purpose in this current section is to discuss women as elders, I cannot enter into that more extended debate.

[63]Vern Sheridan Poythress, “The Church as Family: Why Male Leadership in the Family Requires Male Leadership in the Church,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 233.

[64]Ibid.

[65]Ibid., 238.

[66]For the debate on this issue, see Wayne Grudem, “Does Kephalē Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples,” Trinity Journal 6 NS (1985): 38–59; Richard S. Cervin, “Does Kephalē Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’ in Greek Literature? A Rebuttal,” Trinity Journal 10 NS (1989): 85–112; Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen, “What Does Kephalē Mean in the New Testament?” in Women, Authority, and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 97–110; Catherine Clark Kroeger, “Appendix III: The Classical Concept of Head as ‘Source’,” in Gretchen Gaebelein Hull, Equal to Serve: Women and Men in the Church and Home (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1987), 267–283; Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ, 113–139.

[67]Kevin Giles claims that scores of complementarians, holding to the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father, have departed from the historic position of the church and in some way embrace the heretical position that the Son is inferior in nature to the Father. He fails to see, however, that the issues of the immanent and economic (or functional) subordination of the Son are different from the issue of ontological subordinationism (Kevin Giles, The Trinity and Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002]). Peter Schemm responds to Giles’s claim (Peter R. Schemm Jr., “Kevin Giles, The Trinity and Subordinationism: A Review Article,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 7/2 [Fall 2002]: 67–78).

[68]For further discussion, see Thomas Schreiner, “Head Coverings, Prophecies, and the Trinity,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 124–139. For an opposing view, see Grenz, “Anticipating God’s New Community,” 597–598.

[69]Linda L. Belleville, “Teaching and Usurping Authority: 1 Timothy 2:11–15,” in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, ed. Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, contributing ed. Gordon D. Fee (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 205.

[70]Ibid., 205–209, 223.

[71]Ibid., 219.

[72]Ibid., 209–217.

[73]Ibid., 219.

[74]Ibid.

[75]Ibid., 219–220.

[76]Ibid., 223.

[77]For example, Marshall, “Women in Ministry,” 58.

[78]Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women, and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministries in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992), 116; cf. Stanley J. Grenz with Denise Muir Kjesbo, Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 138.

[79]Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “A Principlizing Model,” in Moving beyond the Bible to Theology, ed. Gary T. Meadors (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 35.

[80]Ibid; cf. Marshall, “Women in Ministry,” 62–63.

[81]Marshall, “Women in Ministry,” 59, 61, 65.

[82]Ibid., 60.

[83]Ibid., 59, 70.

[84]Ibid., 65. For Marshall’s interpretation of this passage, see Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 436ff.

[85]Some of the following discussion follows Richard W. Hove, Equality in Christ? Galatians 3:28 and the Gender Dispute (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1999).

[86]Paul K. Jewett, Man as Male and Female: A Study in Sexual Relationships from a Theological Point of View (Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1975), 142.

[87]Accessible at http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/our-mission-and-history.

[88]Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1997), 25.

[89]Jewett, Man as Male and Female, 142.

[90]Ibid., 112.

[91]Ibid., 112–113.

[92]Ibid., 114. He further exemplifies this Pauline contradiction by appealing to 1 Timothy 2:11–15 (ibid., 116–117).

[93]Groothuis, Good News for Women, 193.

[94]Ibid., 35.

[95]Ibid., 38.

[96]Groothuis quotes approvingly F. F. Bruce, in his reference to Galatians 3:28: “Paul states the basic principle here; if restrictions on it are found elsewhere in the Pauline corpus . . . they are to be understood in relation to Galatians 3:28, and not vice versa” (F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Exeter, UK: Paternoster; and Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 190.

[97]Groothuis, Good News for Women, 37.

[98]Jewett, Man as Male and Female, 169.

[99]Groothuis, Good News for Women, 193.

[100]Belleville, “Women Leaders in the Bible,” in Discovering Biblical Equality, 123; Gordon D. Fee, “The Priority of Spirit Gifting for Church Ministry,” in ibid., 244–245.

[101]The Greek is οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοις ἀποστόλοις (hoitines eisin episēmoi en tois apostolois), which the ESV renders “well known to the apostles.” See note 126 for references to the debate.

[102]Fee considers 1 Timothy 2:11–12 as standing “in unrelieved tension” with other passages (e.g., Acts 18:26; 1 Cor. 14:26, 29–31) that present women as being involved in some form of teaching (Fee, “Priority of Spirit Gifting for Church Ministry,” 247). Specifically, he finds no convincing arguments that “this is not an ad hoc word to a very case-specific issue in the churches of Ephesus” (ibid., 252).

[103]Ibid., 249.

[104]Ibid., 247, 249–251.

[105]Ibid., 251, 253.

[106]Ibid., 248–249.

[107]Ibid., 254.

[108]Ibid. For similar ideas, see Grenz, “Anticipating God’s New Community,” 603–604.

[109]Brad Harper and Paul Louis Metzger, Exploring Ecclesiology: An Evangelical and Ecumenical Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2009), 202. A similar approach can be seen in Giles, Trinity and Subordinationism, 202–203; cf. Grenz, “Anticipating God’s New Community,” 601–602.

[110]Harper and Metzger, Exploring Ecclesiology, 202. Biblical support for this egalitarian future includes: (1) Matthew 22:23–32, specifically, Jesus’ comment that “in the eschaton, the community of God will not be structured on the basis of marriage between men and women, for human marriage will no longer exist,” with the conclusion that hierarchy does not apply to the people of God in the future; and (2) Ephesians 5, which envisions a future structure of submission not between husband and wife, but between the church and Christ (ibid., 202–203).

[111]Evidence for the propriety of drawing back the future into the church’s present reality includes Paul’s call for “the elimination of social hierarchies in the community of salvation based on God’s revelation” in Galatians 3:28 and Ephesians 4:14–16 and 6:1–9 (ibid., 203).

[112]Ibid.

[113]Ibid., 205.

[114]Interestingly, Harper and Metzger continue the husband-wife hierarchy in the home, resulting in this situation: “a woman could remain in submission to her husband’s authority in the home, yet function in the church as an elder/leader, his ecclesiological equal or, perhaps, an authority over him” (ibid.). They envision this situation as “a place of possible rapprochement for egalitarians and hierarchicalists [their term for complementarians]” (ibid., 206).

[115]For evidence that the church has historically affirmed the inerrancy of Scripture, understood, inter alia, to mean that Scripture does not contradict itself, see Gregg R. Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 99–119.

[116]James M. Hamilton Jr., “What Women Can Do in Ministry: Full Participation within Biblical Boundaries,” in Women, Ministry, and the Gospel, 41.

[117]Henry Scott Baldwin, “An Important Word: Αὐθεντέω in 1 Timothy 2:12,” in Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, 39–52; disputed by Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ, 361–397.

[118]Marshall, “Women in Ministry,” 60 and 60n25.

[119]S. M. Baugh, “A Foreign World: Ephesus in the First Century,” in Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, 13–38.

[120]Hove, Equality in Christ? 34.

[121]Ibid., 69–76; 107–116.

[122]Ibid., 107.

[123]Ibid., 109.

[124]Judith M. Gundry-Volf, “Christ and Gender: A Study of Difference and Equality in Gal 3.28,” in Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift, ed. C. Landmesser et. al., Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 86 (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1997), 476.

[125]Hove, Equality in Christ? 116–117.

[126]For the debate on whether Junia(s) was an apostle (a view that is by no means well supported), see John Piper and Wayne Grudem, “An Overview of Central Concerns: Questions and Answers,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 79–81; Thomas R. Schreiner, “The Valuable Ministries of Women in the Context of Male Leadership: A Survey of Old and New Testament Examples and Teaching,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 214, 221–222; Linda L. Belleville, Women Leaders and the Church: Three Crucial Questions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000), 54–56; idem, “Women Leaders in the Bible,” 110–125; Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More than One Hundred Disputed Questions (Sisters, Ore: Multnomah, 2004), 223–27; Michael H. Burer and Daniel B Wallace, “Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Reexamination of Romans 16:7,” New Testament Studies 47 (2001): 76–91.

[127]Caution is urged in drawing the conclusion that, because they hosted church gatherings in their homes, Lydia and Nympha were the authoritative leaders of those churches. For discussion, see Bruce Button and Fika J. Van Rensburg, “The ‘House Churches’ in Corinth,” Neotestamentica: Journal of the New Testament Society of South Africa 37/1 (2003): 1–28.

[128]If a close link between spiritual gifts and church office were necessary or even of importance for the proper functioning of the church, one would expect that the list of qualifications for the office of elder would include a mention of the requisite gifts. Though the office requires the ability to teach (1 Tim. 3:2) and the ability to lead (1 Tim. 3:4–5), it does not require the gifts of teaching and leading.

[129]This critique is directed against the approach of Harper and Metzger and similar methods like that of Stanley Grenz. The Redemptive-Movement approach, exemplified by the model of William Webb, is patient of the same critique, but as it is a more general hermeneutical framework for the interpretation of all of Scripture, an adequate critique is far beyond the scope of this book (William J. Webb, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001]; idem, “A Redemptive-Movement Model,” in Gary T. Meador, Moving beyond the Bible to Theology, 215–248; and its accompanying responses, ibid., 249–270). For thoroughgoing responses to Webb’s proposal, see Wayne Grudem, “Should We Move beyond the New Testament to a Better Ethic? An Analysis of William J. Webb, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis,” JETS 47/2 (June 2004): 299–346; Thomas Schreiner, “William J. Webb’s Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals: A Review Article,” SBTJ 6/1 (Spring 2002): 46–64.

[130]Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 9.

[131]Clement of Rome notes this distinction between the two offices also. Speaking of the apostles, he explains, “So, preaching both in the country and in the towns, they appointed their first fruits, when they had tested them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons for the future believers. And this was no new thing they did, for indeed something had been written about bishops and deacons many years ago, for somewhere thus says the scripture: ‘I will appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith.’” Clement’s reference is to the LXX version of Isaiah 60:17 (Clement of Rome, The Letter of the Romans to the Corinthians 42 [ANF 1:16], in Apostolic Fathers, 73–75).

[132]This general notion of service is by far the most common one where the word διάκονος (diakonos) is used in the New Testament: the government “is God’s servant” (Rom. 13:4), “Christ became a servant to the circumcised” (Rom. 15:8), and false apostles are “servants” of Satan disguising themselves as “servants of righteousness’ (2 Cor. 11:14–15) but are not “servants of Christ” (2 Cor. 11:23). Paul and his coworkers are often called “servants”: “servants through whom” others believe in Christ (1 Cor. 3:5), “ministers of a new covenant” (2 Cor. 3:6) or of the gospel (Eph. 3:7; Col. 1:23), “servants of God” (2 Cor. 6:4) or “of Christ” (Col. 1:7; 1 Tim. 4:6) or “of the church” (Col. 1:24–25) who are “faithful . . . in the Lord” (Eph. 6:21; Col. 4:7).

[133]For example, Bannerman claims, “The duties entrusted to ‘the seven,’ in short, were just in substance those assigned to the office-bearers known as ‘deacons’. . . . The unbroken tradition of such writers from Irenaeus onwards is correct in declaring this to be the origin of the deaconship in the Christian Church” (D. Bannerman, The Scripture Doctrine of the Church: Historically and Exegetically Considered [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1887], 416–417).

[134]Though deacons “must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience,” they do not have to possess the ability to communicate this truth as do the elders of the church.

[135]The “for” (γάρ [gar]) of 1 Timothy 3:13 means that the verse is an explanation of what precedes, probably the entirety of Paul’s discussion about deacons (3:8–12). Deacons must be a certain kind of person, hold to the mystery of the faith, and manage their own households well, and the explanation for these requirements is that well-rendered diaconate service brings great benefit to those who so serve (not to mention to the church that is thereby served).

[136]Contra B. B. Warfield, who renders v. 10 “but these, too” should be tested, implying that deacons, like elders, are to first undergo scrutiny before being allowed to embark on service in the church. This would resolve the issue of why deacons and not elders are required to be tested. But Paul’s point seems rather to be that another requirement for serving as deacons—in addition to and following the character qualifications (v. 8) and the condition of clinging to the Christian faith (v. 9)—is the test they must pass (B. B. Warfield, “Critical Note: Some Exegetical Notes on 1 Timothy,” Presbyterian Review 8/31 [1887]: 504–505).

[137]One should note that the personal pronoun “their” found in the ESV, KJV, NKJV, and NIV (1984) does not translate any Greek word. It is added in translation to clarify that the “wives” to which Paul refers are not just any wives in the church, but “their wives,” that is, the wives of deacons. It is this group of wives that is being discussed, because Paul is addressing the requirements for deacons in this context.

[138]This could also explain why Paul “interrupts” the natural flow of his presentation at this point: he first covers the qualifications that apply generally for men deacons (1 Tim. 3:8–10), then switches to his discussion of women deacons (v. 11). He next addresses a specific qualification for men deacons: they must be “the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well” (v. 12). Obviously, this qualification would not apply to women deacons; thus, Paul places this specific qualification after his discussion of the general qualifications for both groups. But what about these women deacons? Do they not need to be “the wife of one husband, managing their children and their own households well?” The absence of such discussion would seem to lend support for the first view that Paul is talking about the wives of deacons. Yet we must remember that a bit earlier, Paul has dealt with the responsibilities of women in the church in relation to their domestic responsibilities: in 2:15, he assures women that they can avoid being deceived by the evil one (“saved” from Satanic attack, a major theme of the Pastoral Epistles; 1 Tim. 1:20; 3:6–7; 4:1; 5:14–15; 2 Tim. 2:26)—and thus not repeat the transgression of Eve (1 Tim. 2:14)—by carrying out their God-ordained domestic roles (“through childbearing,” that is, having and nurturing children) and persevering in Christlikeness (“if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control”). As these are instructions for all women in the church generally speaking, they are certainly instructions for women deacons as a subset of that larger group. Thus, Paul does not need to discuss this qualification for deaconesses in 3:11; he has already covered it with regard to women generally.

[139]When Paul addresses marital relationships in this context, he uses a prepositional phrase (in Greek, a noun in the genitive case): when referring to the qualifications for an elder, he insists that the elder be “the husband of one wife” (γυναικός; gunaikos; 1 Tim. 3:2). When listing the qualifications for a deacon, Paul indicates that the deacon is to be “the husband of one wife” (γυναικός; gunaikos; 3:12). When discussing the qualifications for widows, he stipulates that the widow must have been “the wife of one husband” (ἀνδρὸς; andros; 5:9). This pattern strongly suggests that if Paul had wanted to address wives in 3:11, he would have written “wives of deacons”: γυναῖκας διακόνων (gunaikas diakonōn).

[140]Thomas Schreiner, personal correspondence, April 30, 2008.

[141]As discussed below, in note 143, in Romans 16:1, Paul refers to Phoebe by employing διάκονος (diakonos, the Greek masculine noun) to describe her. If he is indeed calling her a “deacon” in the church, then clearly Paul had a word to refer to deaconesses in 1 Timothy 3:11: he would simply use διάκονοι (diakonoi, the masculine Greek noun). Though this may have been Paul’s typical practice, it would not serve him well in 1 Timothy 3:8–13: he has been addressing deacons in vv. 8–10 and clearly wants to switch to a new group in v. 11. The use of διάκονοι (diakonoi) would not enable him to distinguish between the male deacons he has been discussing and the female deacons to which he turns. Thus, he used the general word γυναῖκας (gunaikas) for his discussion of deaconesses. The first occurrence of a particular word for deaconess is in Canon 19 of the Council of Nicea (325); the term is διάκονισσα (diakonissa).

[142]So also Edmund P. Clowney, The Church: Sacraments, Worship, Ministry, Mission, Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 232–234.

[143]Apparently, the majority of modern commentators consider Paul’s reference to be to Phoebe as a deacon of the church of Cenchreae, according to Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 786–788. Certainly, this view has early support, as seen in Chrysostom’s note that, in Romans 16:1–2, Paul “mentioned her [Phoebe’s] rank of deaconess” (Homilies on Romans 30) and in the comment of Theodoret of Cyrus that “the church at Cenchreae was so large that it even had a woman deaconess” (Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans); cited in Romans, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, ed. Gerald Bray, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2005), 369–371. The fact that Phoebe is “a διάκονος (diakonos)” of a particular church is the major argument in support of this view, which stands opposite the position that Phoebe is just a general Christian servant (C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., ICC [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986], 2:781).

[144]A very early attestation of the existence of deaconesses (Latin: ministrae) occurs in the correspondence between Pliny and the emperor Trajan written in the first part of the second century (Pliny the Younger, Letter 10 [to Trajan] 46.8; cited in Documents of the Christian Church, ed. Henry Bettenson and Chris Maunder, 3rd [new] ed. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999], 4).

[145]Each church will have to make concrete decisions about the actual ministries of deacons and deaconesses. Given both biblical instructions and prudence, women should serve in women’s ministries and not in men’s ministries; oppositely, men should serve in men’s ministries and not in women’s ministries. When it comes to ministries in which men and women are engaged together, each church will need to decide for itself the extent of female leadership. For an excellent tool to help churches work through the ministries to be carried out by women, see Wayne Grudem’s article, “But What Should Women Do in the Church?” in CBMW News 1/2 (November 1995): 3–7 (available at www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol–1-No–2/But-What-Should-Women-Do-In-The-Church).

[146]Clearly, my view of the work of deacons and deaconesses is different from the traditional diaconal models that relegate the responsibilities of deacons to temporal/physical matters. My view is also different from the typical solo pastor–board of deacons model of church government in which the deacons, for all intents and purposes, function as pastors. In such churches, I would not advocate women deacons because to do so would seem to endorse the position that women can be pastors. But in churches in which there is a clear demarcation between the office of elders/pastors and the office of deacons, I believe that both men and women can hold the second office.

CHAPTER

EIGHT

TYPES OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter I offer a general discussion of church government, or the way authority is structured in and among the offices and/or congregation of the church. In the preceding chapter I addressed two ongoing church offices—eldership and diaconate, with the office of apostleship no longer functioning—but I did not treat another office—bishopric—that is incorporated into the authority structure of many churches, nor did I discuss the congregation, which in many churches is also key to that structure. Accordingly, this chapter is dedicated to a presentation of the various types of polity that have existed throughout the church’s history and that continue to function in our contemporary context.

Few topics in theology in general and ecclesiology in particular have the ability to induce sleepiness among many while also generating heated debate among others as does the issue of church government. For the first group, the unconcerned, the words of John Knox should underscore the importance of this discussion:

As the Word of God is the life and soul of this church, so this godly order and discipline is as it were sinews in the body, which knit and join the members together with decent order and comeliness. It is a bridle to stay the wicked from their mischief. It is a spur to prick forward such as are slow and negligent. Yes, and for all people it is the Father’s rod ever in readiness to chastise gently the faults committed and to cause them afterward to live in more godly fear and reverence. Finally, it is an order left by God to his church.[1]

To the second group, the overly concerned, two simple reminders should suffice: churches governed according to all three historical forms of church government have existed and continue to flourish today, and no general council of the church has ever pronounced on this matter.

This latter consideration should not lead us to conclude that church government is adiaphoron (an indifferent matter). Indeed, an initial question that needs to be faced is whether church government of some sort “is (minimally) fitting or (maximally) necessary to the life of a community at whose centre lies the gospel of Jesus Christ.”[2] John Webster attempts to make a simple argument “that a ministry of oversight is a necessary implication of the church’s confession of the gospel.”[3] He explains the importance of such a discussion:

First, it is vital to trace the connection between gospel and order if we are not to fall prey to the individualism and anticlericalism which have affected a great deal of modern Protestant theology . . . [whose protests against the Catholic Church’s hierarchy] have in modernity often been translated into assertions of the primacy of private (or perhaps congregational) judgment, and of the merely secondary character of community order in relation to the fundamental reality of unmediated encounter with God in Christian experience.[4]

Webster’s proposal is, specifically, “that order is ingredient within the gospel’s logic”[5] because “The revealed secret of God not only concerns the unfathomable majesty of God himself; it also concerns that human society which the triune God elects, sustains and perfects ‘to the praise of his glorious grace’ (Eph. 1.5). . . . God is the one who manifests who he is in the economy of his saving work in which he assembles a people for himself.”[6] Accordingly, “the community which is constituted by the gospel is, indeed, an ordered society.”[7] Webster’s argument for order based on the gospel and the church in the economy of salvation is quite a welcomed approach. For evangelicals who wish a more explicitly biblical approach, I think his presentation can be augmented.

First, the importance of church order flows from the nature of God. Addressing the chaotic confusion that threatened the church of Corinth, Paul demanded that the Christians engage in multiform worship—“When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation” (1 Cor. 14:26)—but with control, offering this reason: “For God is not a God of confusion but of peace” (v. 33). Because of this divine reality, he insisted that “all things should be done decently and in order” (14:40; cf. Col. 2:5). Whether Paul is referring to the divine being, the relationships between the three members of the Godhead, and/or the works of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the ordered nature of the being/relationships/works of God is the ground of the order in the church.

The logocentricity of the church is a second reason for church order. As we have seen, Jesus Christ as head over all things has been established as the head of the church (Eph. 1:19–23). This authoritative lordship means that he exercises order over and in the church, which is his body and which therefore submits to him as its head. As James White explains, “The exercise of his lordship brings order and consistency to the expression of his church in the local bodies. It is not his intention that his church be a mass of confusion, but instead be an orderly organized entity with a specific purpose and intention.”[8] As Paul explains further, the hierarchical order of submission to authority within human marriage reflects the hierarchical order of submission to authority that exists between the church and Jesus Christ (Eph. 5:22–24). There is a Christological reason for church order.

A third support for order is the pneumadynamic characteristic of the church. As we have seen, the Holy Spirit establishes leaders in the church (Acts 20:28); at least one of their responsibilities is to manage their congregations in an orderly manner (1 Tim. 3:4–5; 5:17). Moreover, in his distribution of spiritual gifts, the Holy Spirit endows certain members of the church with gifts of administration (1 Cor. 12:28). These leaders and gifts provide order for and in the church. Paul’s pattern of establishing elders in every church (Acts 14:23) was at least in part for the purpose of providing order for those churches, as confirmed by Paul’s statement of purpose in regard to his representative Titus: “This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you” (Titus 1:5). These biblical affirmations underscore that order and structure are provided by the Holy Spirit through church leadership. So that this human leadership does not overreach its proper sphere, it is important that the church be cognizant of the originating leadership of the Spirit and its own derivative leadership. As Moltmann urged, “It is not the church that administers the Spirit. . . . The Spirit ‘administers’ the church with the events of word and faith, sacrament and grace, offices and traditions.”[9]

Practical matters compose the fourth reason for church order. In the early church, letters of commendation were exchanged between churches as a means of indicating that those presenting the letters were in good standing and should be welcomed by the receiving churches (Acts 18:24–28; 2 Cor. 3:1). Moreover, economic support was collected by churches and then sent to help financially struggling congregations (Rom. 15:22–29; 1 Cor. 16:1–4; 2 Cor. 8–9). Furthermore, churches maintained a register in which widows were enrolled (1 Tim. 5:9–12); this list confirmed that these widows were legitimate recipients of church financial aid. The handling of these practical matters underscores the importance of church order.[10]

Drawing, then, from the nature of God, several attributes of the church, and practical considerations, we can supplement Webster’s good approach to grounding ecclesial order on the gospel and the church in the economy of salvation. One of these four additional elements in support of church order—the headship of Christ over and in his body—deserves additional discussion, which becomes the next topic.

THE SUPREME HEADSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST

Though it may go without saying, the head of the church is Jesus Christ who, by virtue of his ascension, was given as head over all creation to the church (Eph. 1:19–23). He promised to build his church (Matt. 16:18); he is its one foundation (1 Cor. 3:11) and cornerstone (Eph. 2:20); he is its chief Shepherd over all human shepherds (1 Pet. 5:4). He is the one “who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands” (Rev. 2:1), exercising “sovereign administration over the affairs of the churches,”[11] to whom he gives royal edicts (Revelation 2–3), including the authoritative threat to terminate a particular church’s existence (2:5). The supreme headship of Jesus Christ over his church has important implications for the church, its government, and its officers.

John Webster urges that the church needs to divest itself of “the notion (which very deeply affects much ecclesiology and theology of ministry) that at his ascension Jesus Christ as it were resigns his office in favour of human ministers, and that henceforth the church is the real centre of ministerial agency. Without an operative theology of the present action and speech of Jesus Christ (which means also, without an operative pneumatology) human acts of ministry threaten to assume his role.”[12] As illustrations, one may think of the pope of the Catholic Church, who is said to be the Vicar (representative) of Christ on earth,[13] and of the Church’s bishops and priests who, while performing the mass, are said to act “in the person of Christ the head” (in persona Christi capitis).[14]

As for “the relation of Christ’s acts to the ministerial activity of the church,” Webster offers,

First, the ministerial acts of Jesus Christ in the Spirit, by which he gathers, protects and preserves the church, are, properly speaking, incommunicable and non-representable. That is to say, if by ‘communication’ or ‘representation’ we mean the assumption of Christ’s proper work by agents other than himself, we may not make use of such concepts in a Christologically and pneumatologically structured theology of ministry. The dogmatic premises of an evangelical ecclesiology—that, as the risen and ascended Lord, Jesus Christ is present and active—do not permit any such transference of agency. Christ distributes his own benefits through his Spirit, that is, by his own hand; they are not to be thought of as some treasure turned over to the church for it to dispense.[15]

This truth does not eliminate actual human ministry, which is ordained by Christ himself, in the church: “For although the acts of Christ are incommunicable, non-representable, Christ himself freely chooses to represent himself through human ministry. . . . He is not delivered into the hands of his servants, who remain entirely at his disposal. But in his lordly freedom, he elects that alongside his triumphant self-manifestation there should also be human service in the church.”[16] Similarly, Calvin addresses the headship of Christ and its implications for church leadership:

He [Christ] uses the ministry of men to declare openly his will to us by mouth, as a sort of delegated work, not by transferring to them his right and honour, but only that through their mouths he may do his own work—just as a workman uses a tool to do his work. . . . [T]hrough the ministers to whom he has entrusted this office and has conferred the grace to carry it out, he dispenses and distributes his gifts to the church; and he shows himself as though present by manifesting the power of his Spirit in this his institution, that it be not vain or idle.[17]

Thus, the ministry of church leadership must be cognizant of and operate under the headship of Jesus Christ.

In summary, the lordship of Jesus Christ, who is the head of the church, is the first word to be spoken in our discussion of church leadership. How the church has lived out and manifested its actual government throughout the centuries of its existence is the topic of the next section.

HISTORICAL TYPES OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT

Several approaches have been followed in discussing the various types of government that have been employed in the church throughout its history. The method used here, though not without its critics,[18] is quite simple and traditional, dividing up the various kinds of church government into three forms: episcopalianism, presbyterianism, and congregationalism. Because these rubrics are quite broad and fit the actual polities of specific churches generally, I will provide examples of each form. Moreover, for each type I will present a description, outline the biblical and theological support marshaled in its favor, and note both common misapprehensions (criticisms that, because they are misunderstandings, are not warranted) and misgivings (presented as constructive criticisms to be heeded).

EPISCOPALIANISM

Description

Episcopalianism refers to the form of church government by bishop (ἐπίσκοπος; episkopos), in whom ultimate authority resides. A key concept is the differentiation between bishops and presbyters/elders, with the former exercising final authority in the church. As a result of this distinction, a threefold ministry exists in episcopalianism, as illustrated in figure 8.1.

FIG. 8.1 Episcopalian Church Government

The ultimate authority of the bishops is exercised in the act of maintaining the three ecclesial offices: the right to consecrate other bishops and to ordain priests and deacons belongs only to the bishops. Presbyters or priests, the second order of clergy, are ordained ministers of a local church or parish with responsibilities to lead worship, preach, pray, and administer baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Deacons, the third order, are ordained servants whose responsibility is to help the bishops and priests.

The Episcopal Church in the United States provides an example of episcopalian government. At the highest level of authority is the General Convention, the governing body that convenes every three years and that consists of both the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies. The House of Bishops is composed of all of the bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States. The House of Deputies is composed of not more than four ordained persons—presbyters, or priests, and deacons—and not more than four lay people from each local church.[19] The House of Bishops elects one of its own bishops as the Presiding Bishop of the Church, with the choice being confirmed by the House of Deputies.[20] This Presiding Bishop serves a nine-year term as Chief Pastor and Primate of the Church and has the responsibility to lead the church and its policies and strategies; “speak God’s words to the Church and to the world”; provide for interim bishops in dioceses without such officers; convene the other bishops; preside over the meetings of the House of Bishops and the joint sessions of the House of Bishops and House of Deputies at the General Convention; and visit each diocese to consult with its officers and lay people, to preach the Word, and to celebrate the Eucharist.[21] Moreover, as “a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, a Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,” the Episcopal Church in the United States is “in communion with the See [the Bishop] of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer.”[22]

Each local diocese is governed by a bishop and consists of multiple local churches that are led by a presbyter or priest and served by deacons. These local churches are subject to the governing authority of the General Convention, with the Presiding Bishop at its head.

Other examples of the episcopalian form of church government include, with wide variation among them, the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the United Methodist Church, and some Pentecostal churches.

Biblical and Theological Support

Proponents of episcopalianism rely on both Scripture and church tradition for support of this governing structure. As noted in the opening chapter’s discussion of the sufficiency of Scripture, most proponents of this form of church government do not believe that Scripture is sufficient for this issue. For example, Peter Toon, an Episcopalian theologian, explains that “the modern Anglican, unlike some of his seventeenth-century ancestors, does not see any blueprint for the polity and government of the church written in Scripture. He is too well aware that biblical studies have shown that there is no one form of ordained ministry and church government in the books of the New Testament. Rather, there are several forms and types.”[23] Thus, and because of the insufficiency of Scripture in this realm, the form of church government adopted is not an essential matter for a church. Accordingly, support for episcopalian polity encompasses both Scripture and church tradition.

As for biblical support, while no passage in the New Testament is an explicit endorsement of the system,[24] this absence is not considered problematic because of the hermeneutical approach adopted: what is required for biblical warrant is the notion of episcopacy, not the full-fledged position, because that notion grows and is brought to maturity soon in the history of the church in the development of monoepiscopacy (see later discussion). A metaphor often used is that of a seed that flowers, as seen in Toon’s discussion of the episcopal three-tiered ministry: “The New Testament . . . suggests the seed if not the full flower, the principle if not the full concept, of the differentiation of ordained ministers. . . . It is not hard to see the Threefold Ministry in its infancy.”[25] He points specifically to the following embryonic support: Jesus’ commissioning and sending of both the twelve apostles and the seventy disciples (Luke 9:1–6; 10:1–24); “the relation of the apostle Paul to those who assisted him (e.g., Timothy and Titus); and the relation between Timothy and Titus and those whom they ordained and appointed.”[26] Further seed-like support includes the references to early Christian leaders who ruled in churches (Heb. 13:17; 1 Thess. 5:12; 1 Cor. 16:15–16) as well as James, who possibly “was (what was later called) a monarchical bishop in Jerusalem (see Acts 21:18).”[27] Similarly, Toon considers the Spirit-endorsed decision of the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:28) and the promise of Christ’s presence when the church is gathered together (Matt. 18:20) as “the seeds and justification” for “the meeting of the church leadership in local, national, and international synods/councils.”[28]

That these and other biblical passages constitute the seeds of episcopalianism is confirmed by the historical development that immediately followed the writing of Scripture in the first century. Early in the second century, monoepiscopacy (a single bishop ruling over a local church) was being encouraged by church leaders such as Ignatius, and at this time the threefold ministry of bishop, presbyter, and deacon became well established.[29]Around 100–115 AD, faced with a dangerous heresy and confronted with potential divisions in churches, Ignatius responded with a new form of church government. He made a distinction between the offices of bishop and presbyter/elder and called for “one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons,” to lead the churches.[30] In one sense, both the bishop and the elders exercised authority over the church.[31] However, Ignatius also elevated the office of bishop over that of elder; the position of deacon was under both of these offices. He set up a parallel: “Be eager to do everything in godly harmony, the bishop presiding in the place of God and the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles and the deacons.”[32] Thus, a three-tiered hierarchy was erected, with the bishop exercising ultimate authority. Accordingly, unity with and obedience to the bishop was indispensable.[33]

As the church developed in the third and fourth centuries, the threefold structure introduced by Ignatius became its standard government. Cyprian was a key contributor to this development when he was faced with the problem of a rival church founded by Novatian. Novatian and his followers broke with the Catholic Church because they considered it to have compromised the Christian faith.[34] Because this breakaway church was sound in its doctrine, Cyprian could not focus his attack against it on theological grounds. The unity of the church, which the Novatian schism had destroyed, could not depend only on holding to the true faith.

Cyprian’s response centered on the office of the bishop as the key to the unity of the church. That is, if someone—like Novatian and his group—was not joined in harmony to the bishops of the Catholic Church, that person or group was heretical: “Whoever he may be, and whatever he may be, he who is not in the church of Christ is not a Christian. . . . [H]e who has not maintained brotherly love or church unity has lost even what he previously had been. There is one church, divided by Christ throughout the whole world into many members, and there is one episcopacy [office of bishop] diffused through a harmonious multitude of many bishops.”[35] According to Cyprian’s concept of the church, then, the office of bishop is not merely an educational and governing ministry that is convenient and beneficial to exercise. Rather, the position is foundational to the very existence of the church, so that without the episcopacy, there could be no church: “The bishop is in the church and the church is in the bishop. If anyone is not with the bishop, he is not in the church. The church, which is catholic and one, is not cut nor divided. Rather, it is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of bishops who cohere with one another.”[36] This essential role of the office of bishop is “founded on the divine law” as set forth by Jesus Christ himself in Matthew 16:18–19.[37] Moreover, the foundational nature of the office means that Christians have to live in obedience to the bishop’s authoritative government. Separation from it—and this was the case with Novatian and his renegade church—spells eternal disaster: “Whoever is separated from the church and is joined to an adulteress is separated from the promises of the church. Whoever forsakes the church of Christ cannot attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father who does not have the church for his mother.”[38] Cyprian made membership in the church necessary for salvation, and the church was none other than the Catholic Church, with bishops at its heart.

According to proponents of episcopalianism, this early historical development suggests its rightness as a form of government. As Toon explains, “that the episcope of the church in the earliest times should have settled in the form of monoepiscopacy (rather than in the form of presbyterial episcopacy) is a fact that one cannot set aside. As a minimum we surely have to say that it was allowed, if not directed, by the Holy Ghost.”[39] Indeed, he finds it hard to believe that God “would have allowed the church in its formative years of growth and expansion in Europe, Africa, and Asia to go so seriously wrong as to make a major mistake in terms of its general polity and church government.”[40]

In summary, proponents of episcopalianism rely on both Scripture and church tradition for support of this governing structure.

The Catholic Church provides other support for its episcopalian system of government. Its most important biblical warrant is Jesus’ calling of the twelve apostles (Matt. 10:1–4) and his words to Peter after Peter had confessed the identity of Christ (16:13–20):

When Christ instituted the Twelve, “he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them.” Just as “by the Lord’s institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff [the Pope], Peter’s successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another.” The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.” This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.[41]

Thus, the college of bishops with the Pope at its head had its beginnings in the calling of the twelve apostles and Jesus’ promise to Peter.

This divinely constituted college of bishops exercises ultimate authority over the Catholic Church.[42] Bishops “exercise their pastoral office over the portion of the People of God assigned to them assisted by priests and deacons.”[43] Their responsibility is threefold: teaching, sanctifying, and governing. Thus, they bear responsibilities for the geographical area (e.g., the archdiocese of Chicago) or particular ministry (e.g., the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) assigned to them and, together as the college of bishops in conjunction with the pope, they exercise ultimate authority over the entire Catholic Church. Associated with this authority is the doctrine of apostolic succession.[44]

Misapprehensions and Misgivings

Misapprehensions of episcopalian government abound. A common misunderstanding is that only the bishops exercise authority in this system. This is simply not the case, as local churches led by presbyters or priests exercise authority that has been delegated to them by the higher-level, episcopal authority. Confusion also arises with regard to the system’s approach to church tradition in general and to the tradition of church government in particular. Just because a doctrine or practice is supported by appeal to church tradition does not mean the support is either weak or wrong. For many of its doctrines and practices, the church claims warrant from past theological formulations and long-standing observances. For example, the “two-nature/one-person” formula, so important for understanding the incarnation of the Son of God as the man Jesus Christ, was definitively expressed by the Council of Chalcedon. The contemporary church rightly justifies its doctrine of the incarnation by appeal to the Chalcedonian Creed. As will become evident, all three forms of church government—episcopalianism, presbyterianism, and congregationalism—underscore historical precedent in their support. So the mere fact that episcopalianism appeals to church tradition (in addition to Scripture) as justification is not wrong in and of itself. Finally, a great deal of misinformation swirls around the Catholic Church’s formulation of episcopalianism—e.g., everything that the pope, as the supreme bishop of the Church, says is infallible; the laity possess no authority whatsoever in the Church—and must be dismissed as misapprehension of the system, not an actual problem with it.[45]

A common misgiving expressed by both presbyterianism and congregationalism is the lack of Scriptural support for episcopalianism. As discussed in the preceding chapter, strong evidence can be marshaled in the New Testament for the interchangeability of the key terms ἐπίσκοπος (episcopos; bishop) and πρεσβύτερος (presbuteros; elder). This means that in the earliest churches, the leaders who were responsible for preaching/teaching, leading, praying, and shepherding the congregations were called either elders or bishops. Accordingly, there were not two separate church offices—one of bishop, another of elder—with the former office being superior in authority to the latter. Rather, the one office was that of bishop or elder.[46] There was a second office—the diaconate—that was dedicated to service, but this means that the earliest church had a two-tiered ministry of elder/bishop and deacon rather than a three-tiered ministry of bishop, elder, and deacon (figure 8.2).

FIG. 8.2 Two-tiered Ministry of the Earliest Church

James White, coming from the perspective that, with his gifts of elders and deacons, God has granted to the church “everything she needs to accomplish what God intends for her to accomplish in this world,” reasons, “If this were not the case, then we would expect to find clear and compelling biblical warrant for the provision of those offices and structures, beyond the elders and deacons of the local church, that are necessary for the church to be what Christ intends her to be.”[47] Given the fact that a separate office of bishop—whether that was the relatively early structure of monoepiscopacy advocated by Ignatius and Cyprian, or the later system of bishops ruling over numerous parishes in a geographical area, or the much later papacy—was not present at the founding of the Christian movement, proponents of both presbyterianism and congregationalism conclude that episcopalianism is an illegitimate development of church governance. While important church issues may have led to the development of the three-tiered ministry—for example, Ignatius advocating the office of bishop as a guard against heresy and factionalism in the church—without biblical warrant for this development, its critics maintain that episcopalianism rests on an inadequate foundation.

This point is supplemented by marshaling New Testament evidence that the earliest churches established were independent, autonomous churches not under the authority of any governing structure above them. As we have seen, episcopalianism claims that such a higher ecclesiastical structure has roots in the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), pointing to James and the authority that he wields as functioning in a way similar to an episcopalian bishop. Though I will have much more to say about the Acts narrative later in this chapter, a brief comment suffices for now: while James exercised an important function in the Jerusalem council, others—Peter, Paul, and Barnabas—played key roles as well, and these four worked in conjunction with the other apostles, the elders of the church, and the entire Jerusalem congregation. This narrative of James and his role in the council provides little support for the notion of episcopacy.[48] Indeed, in my discussion of congregationalism, I will offer evidence that the earliest churches were autonomous entities.

Another common misgiving is the shadow of doctrinal confusion, unbiblical practices, heresy, and other reprehensible errors that its historical development casts on episcopalianism and its structures above the local church level: “history has shown that such structures are by far the most effective means for the spreading of false teaching and error. . . . A false teacher with limited authority in one congregation is to be expected in the course of things; a false teacher in an ecclesiastical structure that allows him to spread his views far and wide under the guise of ‘the church’ is a tragedy.”[49] A potent example is the recent developments within the Anglican Communion centered on the ordination of homosexual priests. The endorsement of such ordination by the Episcopal Church in the United States (ECUSA) has been met with deep resistance on the part of some parishes. These churches consider homosexuality to be a sinful activity condemned by Scripture and thus view the ordination of practicing homosexuals to be an illegitimate ecclesial action. More deeply still, these parishes believe that the climate for such a development has been fostered by the ECUSA’s disregard for biblical authority. Thus, they face a situation in which hierarchical structures above the local church level have been compromised with respect to Scripture and are imposing an unbiblical ecclesial action on them. A growing number of these parishes has withdrawn from the ecclesial oversight of the ECUSA.[50] This development vividly illustrates the powerful influence toward unbiblical positions that can be brought to bear on local congregations by episcopalianism and its structures of authority above the local church level.

Another misgiving develops over and against the claim, noted earlier, that the office of bishop is necessary for the existence of the church. Speaking from a Baptist congregationalist perspective, Wayne Ward observes that a settled pattern of Sunday worship featuring prayer, exposition of Scripture, adoration, and the Lord’s Supper was established and practiced among the earliest Baptist churches in England. He then comments, “The characteristic pattern of Baptist worship was established by 1612 and it has continued with remarkable consistency, in a Free Church tradition, without bishop, creed, or council to impose uniformity, until this day.”[51] If for four hundred years the Baptist form of congregationalism has yielded this result in terms of maintaining a uniform liturgy, then the claim that (at least some forms of) episcopalianism are necessary for the esse, or existence of the church, is contradicted.

For this reason (and others), some forms of episcopalianism deny that their type of government is necessary for the esse, the being or existence, of the church; rather, it is needed either for the bene esse, the well-being, of the church, or the plene esse, the fullness of being, of the church. For proponents of the first claim—that the office is the esse of the church—“the episcopate guarantees the church.”[52] In other words, the church could not exist without the office of bishop; indeed, for those who make this claim, churches without the episcopate are not true churches. This is the position of the Catholic Church.[53] Those who advocate the view that the office of bishop is essential for the bene esse (well-being) of the church “hold that episcopacy is the best as well as the most natural method of church government, for it brings the greatest good to the church of God in terms of value and usefulness.”[54] In other words, the church could exist without the office of bishop, but it would not be as well off as it would be with it. Accordingly, churches that are governed by presbyterian and congregational structures are true churches but are less than what they could and should be. Proponents of plene esse, a mediating position between “the high claim of esse” and “the low claim of bene esse,” maintain that the historical episcopate is the fullness of being of the church. This is so because the historical episcopate provides “the embodiment of the gospel in church order in two ways. First, it provides the effectual sign of unity, the biblical proclamation that the church of Jesus Christ is one. Second, it includes the principle of apostolicity. . . . The historical episcopate is thus an effectual sign of the relation of Christ to his church, for it shows forth his authority within his church.”[55] Thus, the church could exist without the office of bishop, but it would not experience “the fullness or perfection of being” as it would with it.[56]

Proponents of both presbyterianism and congregationalism side with proponents of the latter two positions as far as they stand against the Catholic position that the historical office of bishop is necessary for the esse of the church.[57] At the same time, advocates for presbyterianism and congregationalism dissent from the latter two positions on the basis of the above misgivings. Because of these problems with the episcopalian system of government, the historical episcopate cannot be of the bene esse (well-being) of the church nor of the plene esse (fullness of being) of the church.

A final misgiving focuses on the episcopal system of the Catholic Church. Protestants dissent from the Catholic interpretation of key biblical passages as establishing a perpetual institution of bishops as successors of the apostles and headed by the bishop of Rome, the pope. According to his own instructions (Matt. 28:18–20), ultimate authority was given to Jesus Christ, who then gave his disciples a commission to make disciples throughout the world. He did not create a group of authoritative successors nor delegate to Peter (and, thus, the future bishops of Rome) supreme authority over the other apostles (and, thus, the Catholic Church). While most Protestants agree that the Catholic Church conserves much orthodox belief within it, no Protestant denomination—including those ruled according to an episcopal form of government—agrees with its unique understanding and implementation of that system.

PRESBYTERIANISM

Description

Presbyterianism refers to the form of church government by elders (πρεσβύτεροι; presbuteroi) as representatives of the church. As Robert Reymond defines it, presbyterianism is “governance of the church by elders/overseers in graded courts, with these officers executing the responsibilities of their office in unison and on a parity with each other, and with the material care and service of the church being looked after by deacons (known corporately as the ‘diaconate’) under the supervision of the elders/overseers.”[58] Like congregationalism, but diverging from episcopalianism, presbyterianism has two church offices: elders and deacons. As for the graded courts, a slight difference in structure and nomenclature exists between Presbyterian churches and Reformed churches. The elders exercising authority in a local congregation are called a session (Presbyterian) or consistory (Reformed).[59] A session or consistory is composed of the teaching elder (or teaching elders) of the church and its ruling elders (the difference between these two types of elders will be explained shortly). All of the teaching elders and one of the ruling elders from each of the churches in a geographical area (e.g., the city of Philadelphia) form a presbytery (Presbyterian); alternatively, one teaching elder and one ruling elder from each church in the geographical area compose a classis (Reformed). The members of the presbyteries or classes in a region (e.g., the state of New Jersey) form a synod.[60] Finally, teaching elders and ruling elders selected by the presbyteries from their members form on the national level a general assembly (Presbyterian).

Specifically,[61] “the session is responsible for the mission and government of the particular church.” Its detailed responsibilities include evangelism and missional endeavors, worship, edification, education, stewardship, leadership, ministries, and the like.[62] Next, “the presbytery is responsible for the mission and government of the church throughout its geographical district.” Its detailed responsibilities include developing and coordinating the mission, growth, and ministries of the churches in its geographical area; starting new churches and combining or closing others; certifying candidates as ready for ordination examination; ordaining new elders and disciplining or removing erring elders; assuming original jurisdiction in cases in which a session cannot exercise its authority; and other responsibilities.[63]

The next governing body is the synod, consisting of at least three presbyteries. “The synod is the intermediate government unit responsible for the mission of the church throughout its region” and has for its responsibilities developing and implementing a broad strategy for the church’s mission, coordinating and facilitating the ministries of its presbyteries, helping its member presbyteries with the ordaining and placing of teaching elders, warning against error in doctrine or immorality existing in its jurisdiction, and the like[64] As the highest governing body, “the General Assembly constitutes the bond of union, community, and mission among all its congregations and governing bodies.” Its responsibilities include setting priorities for the work of the church, developing and implementing a comprehensive strategy for the church’s mission, overseeing nationwide ministries, supervising the work of the synods, warning against error in doctrine or immorality existing both inside and outside the church, providing the authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order, and other similar responsibilities.[65]

Throughout this governing structure, a distinction is made between teaching elders and ruling elders. In terms of the first type, “As he has the oversight of the flock of Christ, he is termed bishop. As he feeds them with spiritual food, he is termed pastor. As he serves Christ in his church, he is termed minister. As it is his duty to be grave and prudent, and an example of the flock, and to govern well in the house and kingdom of Christ, he is termed presbyter or elder. As he is the messenger of God, he is termed the angel of the church.”[66] A teaching elder is seminary educated and ordained by a presbytery and, when called by a local congregation, he is responsible for the ministry of the Word, the administration of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and leading with the ruling elders. As for these latter, “Ruling elders are properly the representatives of the people, chosen by them for the purpose of exercising government and discipline, in conjunction with pastors and ministers. This office has been understood . . . to be designated in the Holy Scriptures, by the title of government and of those who rule well, but do not labor in the word and doctrine.”[67] Ruling elders (and there is always a plurality of these in a church) are not seminary educated and not ordained. They are elected by the members of the congregation as their representatives and are responsible for governing it along with the teaching elder.

Combining the fundamental principles of presbyterianism as articulated by several of its leading proponents, the key elements (as summarized by Louis Berkhof) are the following: first, “Christ is the Head of the Church and the Source of all its authority.”[68] This principle stands over against the Catholic Church and its papacy as well as any Erastian system that elevates the state or monarch as the head of the church.[69] Equally opposed by this presbyterian principle is congregationalism and its notion of the church as “a mere voluntary society, which has its only warrant in the consent of its members.”[70] Second, “Christ exercises His authority by means of His royal Word.”[71] While Christ exercises his rule through the preaching of his Word and administration of the sacraments by teaching elders, “this is not to be understood in the sense that He transfers His authority to His servants” as imagined by the Catholic Church.[72] The authority exercised by the church’s elders is a derived, not absolute or independent, authority.

Third, “Christ as King has endowed the Church with power.”[73] It is not to church “officers as a separate class, in contradistinction from the ordinary members of the Church” (as believed by the Catholic Church and episcopalianism) that Christ gives his power.[74] Nor is it “vested in the Church at large” so that the “officers are merely the organs of the body as a whole” (as conceived by congregationalism).[75] Rather, “ecclesiastical power is committed by Christ to the Church as a whole, that is to the ordinary members and the officers alike; but in addition to that the officers receive such an additional measure of power as is required for the performance of their respective duties in the Church of Christ.”[76] Fourth, “Christ provided for the specific exercise of this power by representative organs.”[77] Though a church’s officers are elected by its members, they still receive their authority and power from Christ himself; “hence they are not deputies or tools that merely seek to carry out the wishes of the people, but rulers whose duty it is to apprehend and apply intelligently the laws of Christ. At the same time they are in duty bound to recognize the power vested in the Church as a whole by seeking its assent or consent in important matters.”[78]

A fifth point is debated. On one side of the debate are those who, like Berkhof, maintain that “the power of the Church resides primarily in the governing body of the local Church”; that is, the “authority of the Church does not reside first of all in the most general assembly of any Church, and is only secondarily and by derivation from this assembly, vested in the governing body of the local Church. Rather, the primary authority resides in the local church, specifically in its session or consistory; it is from the local church that the authority is transferred to the presbyteries (or classes), synods, and general assemblies.”[79] On the other side of the debate are those who, like some Scottish Presbyterians, advocate a type of presbyterian aristocracy in which the primary authority is vested in the highest governing body and is then transferred to the lower bodies and finally to the local church and its session. A mediating position between these two sides of the debate is proposed by Reymond: each governing body has “its own intrinsic authority peculiar to itself; for if Christ has in fact authorized ascending levels of courts, the upper levels possess necessarily and intrinsically just the authority he has granted to them in their authorization to exist.”[80]

Biblical and Theological Support

The key distinction between types of elders is based primarily on 1 Timothy 5:17. According to presbyterianism, Paul addresses two distinct groups, “the elders who rule well” and “those who labor in preaching and teaching”; thus, there are two types of elders: ruling elders and teaching elders (figure 8.3):

FIG. 8.3 Presbyterianism’s Two Types of Elders

Other biblical support for this division is found in Paul’s distinction between “teaching” and “leading” in Romans 12:7–8, and his differentiation between “teachers” and “administration” in 1 Corinthians 12:28. Furthermore, the category of “pastor-teachers” in Ephesians 4:11, by which “Paul intended not two but one office,” identifies that group “as the teaching elders of the church in distinction from the ruling elders.”[81]

Biblical and theological support for the concept of “governance of the church by elders/overseers in graded courts”[82] comes first for presbyteries/classes from a discussion of the nature of the early churches, and second for synods on the basis of Acts 15.

I turn first to the warrant for governance by presbyteries/classes above the local church level. The several lines of support focus on the existence of multiple congregations as one church under one government. Appeal is made to occasions in which the term “church” refers to a visible entity beyond that of a local church (e.g., Acts 9:31; 1 Cor. 12:28). While not direct evidence for presbyteries/classes, it does indicate the existence of a “church” structure above the local church level.[83]

Additionally, good reasons exist to suppose that the early churches did not consist of single congregations. One reason is that the size of the Jerusalem church, with its thousands of Christians,[84] would have prevented all those believers from ordinarily meeting as one congregation for worship, the teaching of the Word, the sacraments, and so forth. Thus, there must have been many congregations in Jerusalem, shepherded initially by the twelve apostles and the many other gifted teachers, with the apostles (later, the apostles and the elders) exercising authority in government. A second reason, moving outside Jerusalem and considering other churches and their manner of meeting, is that the size of the possible gathering places for the early Christians—homes (e.g., Acts 2:46; 12:12; 28:30–31; Rom. 16:5), upper rooms (Acts 1:12–14; 20:8), the “hall of Tyrannus” (19:9)—precluded large numbers of them assembling together at the same time. This situation demanded many small congregations gathering separately rather than all the believers meeting together.[85] At the same time, the many congregations in Jerusalem were all considered to be the church of Jerusalem under one government, as were the many congregations in the other cities (e.g., Antioch, Ephesus) considered to be the church of Antioch or the church of Ephesus under one government (13:1–3; 20:17, 28).[86]

My second discussion focuses on the warrant for governance of the church by a synod above both the local church level and the level of presbytery/classis. The following is a summary of evidence for this type of assembly from the account of the Jerusalem council (Acts 15–16:5) as interpreted from a presbyterian perspective.[87]

A particular incident took place that provided a legitimate occasion for a synod of the several presbyteries existing in the early days of the new Christian movement: “But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved’” (Acts 15:1). Greater detail is given a bit later in the story: “but some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, ‘It is necessary to circumcise them [Gentile Christians] and to order them to keep the law of Moses’” (v. 5). Complicating matters, it may have been the case that these Pharisees had claimed that the apostles and elders of the church of Jerusalem had sent them to the Gentile churches to teach these additional matters necessary for salvation (vv. 23–24). The spread of false doctrine, coupled with lying to advance the heresy, became the occasion and reason for calling a synod of the church in Jerusalem. According to Reymond, “the local congregations at Antioch, related to one another as the ‘Antioch presbytery,’ did not believe that they had sufficient authority to settle for themselves the terms of church membership in their churches. In order to decide the issue authoritatively they obviously believed that it was necessary for them to request the convening of the assembly of elders in Jerusalem.”[88]

The fact that several churches—those “in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia” (Acts 15:23)—had been disturbed by this development provided further warrant for the synod of several churches to be convened. In addition, preliminary attempts to resolve the problem had failed, so something weightier was needed. “And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question” (v. 2). That is, Paul and Barnabas, along with some other men, were official representatives from the presbytery of Antioch, and they were joined (perhaps) by official representatives (perhaps “Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas”; vv. 22, 27, 32) from the presbyteries of Syria and Cilicia (see vv. 23, 41)[89] for a synod with the Jerusalem presbytery, represented by the apostles and elders (vv. 2, 4, 6).[90]

In this meeting, all the participants—whether apostles, elders, or other church delegates—exercised equal authority as they considered the issues at hand. Evidence for this shared authority is the fact that all the proceedings were conducted with the apostles and elders of the church at Jerusalem (vv. 2, 4, 6) and that the consensus decision “seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church” (v. 22).

Moreover, the proceedings of this council resembled a typical synod: a request is made by a presbytery for a convening of other presbyteries to resolve a complicated issue, and the assembly proceeds with speeches, discussion of Scripture, and deliberations about the issue at hand, until a synodal decision is reached. Included in this decision was a solution for the problem, a censure against those who caused the problem, a declaration of the solution to the churches represented by the synod (Acts 15:28–29; 16:4), and a cheerful acceptance of the solution by the churches as a binding decision coming from a synod vested with juridical authority (15:30–31).[91]

In summary, the council of Jerusalem provides strong biblical support for governance of the church by a synod above both the local church level and the level of presbytery/classis.

A theological argument in support of presbyterianism appeals to the importance of a representative government structure that increases the collective wisdom of the church and expresses its unity. For example, the Presbyterian Church USA emphasizes

that a larger part of the Church, or a representation of it, should govern a smaller, or determine matters of controversy which arise therein; that, in like manner, a representation of the whole should govern and determine in regard to every part, and to all the parts united: that is, that a majority shall govern; and consequently that appeals may be carried from lower to higher governing bodies, till they be finally decided by the collected wisdom and united voice of the whole Church.[92]

Throughout the presbyterian structure of authority, then, the unity of the church is manifested: “The nature of Presbyterian order is such that it shares power and responsibility. The system of governing bodies, whether they have authority over one or many churches, sustains such mutual relationships within the structures as to express the unity of the church.”[93] Given the importance of wisdom for the church and the expression of the church’s unity, this theological argument provides additional support for presbyterianism.

Misapprehensions and Misgivings

A common misapprehension of presbyterian government is that the higher-level structures—the presbytery/classis, synod, and general assembly—wield the actual authority in this system. This is simply not the case, as local churches led by their session or consistory exercise authority in and over those congregations.

A related misapprehension is that the source of authority resides first and primarily in the higher-level structures and only secondarily and derivatively in the local churches. As discussed earlier, however, this view is not the majority view within presbyterianism today, and other, more common views—the authority resides first and primarily in the local churches and only secondarily and derivatively in the higher-level structures; each governing body has its own intrinsic authority authorized by Christ—avoid this problem.

As for misgivings, the correctness of the presbyterian interpretation of 1 Timothy 5:17 is questioned and, as a result, the fundamental distinction between ruling elders and teaching elders is doubted. According to opponents, a more plausible understanding of this verse is that Paul is not describing two distinct groups, but a sub-group within a larger group (figure 8.4):

FIG. 8.4 Alternative View of the Two Types of Elders

Paul’s point is that elders are defined by their function of leading;[94] as seen in the last chapter, all elders exercise leadership in the church (1 Tim. 3:4–5).[95] Furthermore, as seen in the last chapter, every elder must also be able to teach (v. 2). As they labor in their ministries, some elders distinguish themselves through their outstanding leadership; this is specifically the case with those who dedicate themselves to the proclamation of the Word of God through preaching regularly and/or teaching extensively. With respect to those elders, Paul gives specific instruction that they “be considered worthy of double honor.”[96] But these are not two types of elders; rather, they are elders who excel in their responsibilities that encompass both leading and teaching.[97]

Moreover, the other biblical support enlisted for this distinction falls short. Specifically, the linking together of “teaching” and “leading” in Romans 12:7–8 is unwarranted, as Paul lists seven spiritual gifts and does not associate them in pairs. The same is true in the apostle’s list of eight gifts in 1 Corinthians 12:28; the pairing of “teachers” and “administration” is foreign to the text. Furthermore, while the Greek construction in Ephesians 4:11 does indeed refer to “pastor-teachers” as one entity, it emphasizes teaching as one important responsibility of pastors but does not distinguish these teaching elders from the ruling elders of the church (this latter category of officers is not mentioned at all in the context).

The most serious misgiving concerns the biblical support for the presbyterian form of government. I will first evaluate the evidence offered for presbyteries/classes from the nature of the early churches, and second I will evaluate the support for synods from the narrative of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15.

My first assessment is of the evidence for presbyteries/classes from the nature of the early churches. Presbyterianism believes that, in the earliest period of the church’s history, multiple congregations existed as one church under one government. This structure could be found in the churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Ephesus (and probably other cities). Evidence for this position consists of several New Testament passages in which the term “church” refers to a visible entity beyond that of a local church (e.g., Acts 9:31; 1 Cor. 12:28). Additional support is found in the large number of believers in these cities who, because of the size limitations of gathering places for these Christians, would have needed to meet in many small congregations. Even though these were separate assemblies, they were still considered to be one church under one government.

As for the first line of support, proponents of presbyterianism admit that the use of the term “church” in these contexts does not provide any direct evidence for presbyteries/classes; at best it indicates the existence of a “church” structure above the local church level, but the nature of that structure is completely unknown. Regarding the second area of support, good biblical evidence does exist that the earliest churches were distributed into smaller congregations (see the next chapter on multisite churches). Not to be overlooked in this discussion, however, is another fact: these same churches also gathered together for worship, preaching the Word, celebration of the ordinances, and the like. A description of the thousands of believers in the church in Jerusalem, for example, mentions them “day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes” (Acts 2:44, 46; large group gatherings, not necessarily in the temple, are also indicated in 3:11; 4:31; 6:2, 5). A second example is the church of Corinth, as Paul five times gives them instruction for “when you come together” (1 Cor. 11:17–18, 20–21, 33–34); the various smaller congregations in the city assembled together as “the whole church” in the home of Gaius (Rom. 16:23). So, while size limitations of gathering places for these Christians demanded regular meetings in homes, this restriction on space did not prevent all of them from also gathering together in larger venues. More importantly, however, none of this evidence indicates anything about how the church was governed. The notion that each congregation was led by a plurality of elders who then met together as the presbytery/classis of Jerusalem (or of Antioch, or of Ephesus) is nothing more than conjecture. Thus, the evidence for the presbyterian form of church government—specifically, for presbyteries/classes—from the nature of the early churches is not convincing.

My second assessment is of the evidence for synods from the narrative of the Jerusalem council. Because of the importance of this passage and the weight that presbyterianism attaches to it in support of its type of government, my interaction with Acts 15 will be substantial.

First, I offer a general comment: in keeping with Luke’s purpose for writing his second account, Acts 15 is about the gospel of Jesus Christ and the spread of his movement, the church, through God’s gracious saving work and the power of the Holy Spirit. Given this orientation, it may be a bit much to demand detailed information about the government of the church from this narrative. At least it warns interpreters and theologians not to abuse the story by twisting its details to conform to or to support a preconceived ecclesial polity. At the same time, because proponents of presbyterianism draw implications from Acts 15 for that type of government, careful attention to the narrative and assessment of those implications is essential.

The key point of the passage comes at the climax of the narrative, which is Acts 15:11: “But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”[98] Thus, the issue that precipitated the council was the false teaching of some men who claimed the endorsement of the apostles while communicating a perverted gospel—salvation by divine grace plus circumcision and obedience to the old covenant law—among the Gentile Christians of the church of Antioch (and perhaps among the churches of Syria and Cilicia). Accordingly, the reasons for taking the matter to the church of Jerusalem were not the failure on the part of Paul and Barnabas to resolve the problem, nor that the Antioch leaders “did not believe that they had sufficient authority to settle for themselves the terms of church membership in their churches.”[99] Rather, the church of Antioch took up the issue with the church of Jerusalem because it was the mother church and because people claiming to have its backing were troubling the church of Antioch in which Barnabas and Paul had ministered (Acts 11:19–26) and the churches that had recently been started by these two apostles during their first missionary journey (Acts 13–14). Moreover, the presence of the apostles, the founders and authoritative teachers of the church, in Jerusalem demanded that the matter be taken to the church there.

In terms of the attendees at this meeting, the narrative indicates that the church of Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas and several others (Acts 15:2)—that is, two apostles (14:14) and a few others, who were not necessarily elders from the church of Antioch.[100] This group joined the apostles and the elders from the church of Jerusalem (15:2, 4, 6); Judas/Barsabbas and Silas were either part of the delegations from Antioch and Jerusalem or in attendance as part of some other church(es) (vv. 22, 27, 32). It is mere conjecture that representatives from the churches of Syria and Cilicia participated in the council; the fact that the letter was sent to those churches does not necessarily imply that they participated in the actual meeting. The narrative does not give sufficient detail to allow us to make the conclusion that “the Antioch presbytery representing several congregations” and probably other presbyteries (those of Syria and Cilicia) representing several congregations joined “the Jerusalem presbytery” to constitute a synod of the church.[101] In addition to these leaders, the church of Jerusalem (vv. 4, 12, 22) attended the council. Thus, the presence of non-apostles and non-elders at the council is affirmed.

As for the meeting itself, the notion that all the participants—whether apostles, elders, or other church delegates—exercised equal authority as they considered the issues at hand is not supported by the text. The apostle Peter, who first preached the gospel to the Gentiles, addressed the council (Acts 15:7–11). Barnabas and Paul, the apostles to the Gentiles (Acts 14:14; Gal. 2:9) addressed the council (Acts 15:12). The apostle James, authoritatively interpreting Jewish Scripture (vv. 16–17; cf. Amos 9:11–12) as supporting the Gentile mission, addressed the council (Acts 15:13–21). These apostolic interventions were decisive; no elder played such an important role. Indeed, the repetition of the expression “the apostles and the elders” consistently distinguishes the two groups; the apostles are not acting as elders at the council. That the decision “seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church” (v. 22) indicates that a consensus was achieved; it does not indicate that the apostles were elders at this council.[102]

Moreover, the proceedings of the council of Jerusalem hardly resembled a typical church synod. The Antioch church did not request the convening of an assembly of church leaders; rather, in response to some troublemakers claiming to have been commissioned by the Jerusalem church, the Antioch church sent Paul and Barnabas and several others to Jerusalem. Furthermore, the reading of the narrative as if it parallels the proceedings of presbyterian synods—with speeches, discussion of Scripture, and deliberations about the issue at hand—is curious at best and ends up masking the key point of the conciliar letter (Acts 15:22–31). As noted above, the key theme of the passage comes at the climax of the narrative: “But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will” (v. 11). This truth rules out circumcision as counting for anything (cf. Gal. 5:6; 6:11–16) and the law as binding on Christ-followers (cf. Rom. 10:4; Gal. 3:23–26). These accretions must not be allowed to “trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God” (Acts 15:19), who do so (as the preceding chapters of this narrative have demonstrated) by faith alone (chapter 10; repeated for emphasis, chapter 11; 13:44–52); indeed, the immediately preceding narrative comes to the conclusion that God “had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles” (14:27). Then, in his current narrative (chapter 15), Luke presents the confusion that occurs in the Gentile church when some people want to add Jewish circumcision and Jewish law to the gospel. Accordingly, at this juncture, a critical question is raised: With what respect should the church treat the Jews? The consensus decision of the council addresses this issue with its letter: due deference is to be shown to them by Gentile Christians in showing respect for the dietary laws of the Jews, with whom the church will certainly come into contact (15:19–21, 28–29).

Accordingly, no solution for the problem was found. The truth as it always stood—salvation by divine grace appropriated by faith—was reiterated. Adding anything to this gospel had always been disastrous for the Jews (Acts 15:10), just as adding anything to it now would be disastrous for the Gentiles (vv. 19, 28). Moreover, no censure against those who provoked the problem was enacted. The letter’s introductory comment—“Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions” (v. 24)—rehearses the origin of the problem and clarifies that the Jerusalem church had not commissioned this group, but it does not censure those people, at least not in a formal way. And no declaration of the solution was made; by no means are the positive steps urged on the Gentiles to show deference to the Jewish dietary regulations designed to correct or prevent the problem of falsifying the gospel. Finally, the response of the churches to which the council’s letter was delivered—“they rejoiced because of its encouragement” (v. 31)—seems far removed from the idea that these churches considered the decision as coming from a synod vested with juridical authority to impose its verdict.

In summary, a reading of Acts 15 that finds convincing evidence for presbyterian government by synods stretches the narrative account and imposes that particular polity on a text that will not support it. This assessment, combined with the judgment that the notion of presbyteries/classes is not well supported by the nature of the early churches, leaves presbyterian polity with a weak biblical foundation.

CONGREGATIONALISM

Description

The term “congregationalism” indicates government by the (local) congregation. Generally speaking, congregationalism “rests authority of the church in each local congregation as an autonomous unit, with no person or organization above it except Christ the Head.”[103] This means that congregationalism diverges from both episcopalianism and its insistence on authoritative bishops above local churches, and presbyterianism with its structure of representative governing bodies (presbyteries/classes, synods, and/or general assemblies) above local churches. Furthermore, congregationalism is based on two essential concepts: (1) autonomy, that is, the local church is independent and self-governing (it is responsible for its own finances, calls its own pastor, owns its own property and building, and the like); and (2) democracy, that is, the authority within the local church resides in its individual members, all of whom participate in congregational decisions through democratic processes. The Baptist Faith and Message affirms these two concepts in its definition of a church as “an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers . . . [that] operates under the lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord.”[104]

Even more foundational than the two concepts of autonomy and democracy is the congregational principle ubi Christus ibi ecclesia (“wherever Christ is, there is the church”),[105] an ecclesiological principle that claims strong biblical support:

Historically it [congregationalism] started from the determination of certain Christian men to form Churches in which all the members should be Christians. As they read their New Testament, they discovered the Church to be separate from any worldly association in the sense that it was founded by Christ and constituted by the relationship of its members to Him. They believed that where Christ is, there is his Church, and that where two or three are gathered in His name, there is He. So to them the Church was not founded on any organization, orders or tradition, but simply on the presence of Christ with His people.[106]

Accordingly, congregationalism rests on three principles—autonomy, democracy, and the presence of Christ with his followers—and invests the authority to govern in the members of the (local) church.

Biblical and Theological Support

It has been said that there is “more warrant for a church led by unicorns than by majority vote.”[107] Others have said something similar using biblical rather than mythological terminology: “This theory of popular government, making the office of the ministry altogether dependent on the action of the people, is certainly not in harmony with what we learn from the Word of God.”[108] Of course, proponents of congregationalism dissent from this opinion, reframing the description of this form of church government while offering biblical/theological as well as historical evidence in its support. Such support is focused on congregational involvement in important ecclesial activities and the local church’s freedom from authoritative governing structures above itself.

In terms of biblical support, proponents of congregationalism point to several lines of evidence. One consists of explicit ecclesial responsibilities delegated to the congregation. Specifically, at the last stage(s) of the exercise of church discipline, Jesus instructs that the matter under consideration be brought before “the church” (Matt. 18:15–20). As discussed in the chapter on church discipline, this congregational responsibility may entail church members confronting erring Christians and urging them to repent, and/or it may consist of church members deciding together to excommunicate erring members. An example of this latter action is the case of the incestuous Christian whom the Corinthian congregation, at the urging of the apostle Paul, expelled from its midst (1 Cor. 5:1–5); this decisive punishment was carried out by “the majority” of the Corinthian members (2 Cor. 2:6). So well did this excommunication work that the erring brother repented of his sin, prompting Paul once again to urge the Corinthian church to “turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow” (v. 7). The important point is that the church itself bears the responsibility to exercise discipline against its erring members and to forgive and reaffirm them when they repent.[109]

Two other examples of direct congregational involvement even when, as in the above case of the Corinthian church, the apostles were overseeing the situation, are the selection of the seven men to serve the Hellenistic Jewish women by distributing food to them (Acts 6:1–6) and the approval of the church of Jerusalem in the decision of the Jerusalem council (Acts 15). As for the first example, according to Luke’s account, the apostles charged the “full number of the disciples” with the responsibility to “pick out from among” themselves servants exhibiting specific traits, men whom the apostles would then “appoint to this duty.” This plan of action “pleased the whole gathering,” and the disciples selected the seven men and set them before the apostles, who in turn commissioned them for service (Acts 6:2–6). In the second example, although the apostles and elders of the church of Jerusalem deliberated and came to a decision regarding instructions to be given to the Gentile Christians (15:6, 23), the decision “seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church” as exemplified in their consensus choice and sending of several men to deliver an informative letter (v. 22).[110] Certainly, one cannot deny the important overseeing role of the apostles (and the elders, in the second case) in these situations. At the same time, one can certainly not deny the important involvement on the part of the whole church in identifying and proposing seven men of its own as the solution to the problem at hand and in approving the decision of the Jerusalem council.[111]

A second line of biblical evidence for congregationalism consists of the church as a whole setting apart and directing specific people for certain responsibilities. Specifically, the church in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to Antioch so he could confirm the startling and unprecedented reports of Gentile conversions in that city (Acts 11:19–24). Moreover, the Antioch church commissioned Paul and Barnabas for their first missionary journey (13:1–3; 14:24–28), and that same church commissioned Paul and Silas on their second missionary journey (15:36–41). Furthermore, the Corinthian church accredited certain of its own members as envoys of the church’s monetary collection for the relief of the Christians in the Jerusalem church (1 Cor. 16:1–4; 2 Cor. 8:16–24). Finally, as we have just seen, the church of Antioch appointed Paul and Barnabas to go to Jerusalem to consult with the church, and the Jerusalem church commissioned Judas/Barsabbas and Silas to accompany Paul and Barnabas in delivering the Jerusalem council’s instructions to the churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (Acts 15:1–35; 16:4).[112] These passages underscore the significant role played by church members in important church decisions and activities.

Congregationalism is further supported by a third line of biblical evidence. In his letters to the seven churches (Revelation 2–3), Jesus Christ addressed each one as an individual entity. When he rebuked a church, the reprimand was directed at the church for trouble that it had brought upon itself: abandonment of its first love (the church of Ephesus; 2:4), toleration of false teaching (the church of Pergamum; 2:14–15; and Thyatira; 2:20–23), deadness of incomplete good works (the church of Sardis; 3:1–2), and lukewarmness (the church of Laodicea; 3:15–17). In turn, when the Lord corrected a church, his expectation was that the church itself would repent (2:5, 16, 22; 3:3, 19) and set straight its own matters: specifically, engage in good works (2:5), wake up and be strong (3:2), and open the door to Christ (3:20). No call for help from any other church was needed to rectify the sinful situation and bring about restoration. The churches had gotten themselves into trouble, and they were expected to depart from their former trouble and embrace the right path. There is no indication of any necessary assistance from the outside in terms of other churches or structures; each church had resources of its own for making the change.

These seven letters contain not only censure and correction but commendation as well. The church of Ephesus worked hard and with great patience, even testing and denouncing false apostles in its midst (Rev. 2:2–3). The church of Smyrna endured much tribulation; it received no rebuke from the Lord (2:9–10). The church of Pergamum remained steadfastly faithful in the midst of intense persecution (2:13). The church of Thyatira was noted for an increase in good works (2:19) and that some of its members did not give in to false teaching (2:24–25). Some of the members in the church of Sardis remained faithful to the Lord (3:4). The church of Philadelphia patiently kept the Word of God; it received no reprimand from the Lord (3:8–11).[113]

Observing the way that Jesus Christ dealt with these churches, proponents of congregationalism conclude that each church is responsible for the maintenance of orthodoxy, orthopraxis, and orthopatheia. This responsibility is reinforced by Paul’s description of the church as “a pillar and buttress of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) and by Jude’s appeal to the church “to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Both of these New Testament letters were written against the backdrop of heresy; Paul and Jude alerted the churches to the dangers of false teaching and called upon those churches to champion sound doctrine, practice, and sentiment. Certainly, church leaders (especially pastors/elders) bear a special responsibility in this area. But this gracious divine provision of pastoral protection by no means minimizes or eliminates the responsibility of congregations to exercise discernment and be vigilant in detecting sub-Christian influences in their midst. Such responsibility supports congregationalism.

To pick up on this last point about church leadership, one of the resources to protect churches from heresy and other dangers is their divinely ordained leaders. As seen in our discussion of elders, one of the responsibilities of this office is guarding the flock from such pitfalls (Titus 1:9). Indeed, Paul’s warning to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:17–35) focused on the fact that after his departure, “fierce wolves will come among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them” (vv. 29–30). Congregationalists point out the apostle’s solution to this impending threat: “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood” (v. 28). Paul does not direct these elders of the church of Ephesus to look outside of the church for help to face and conquer the looming danger. Rather, the church, through its own leadership appointed by the Holy Spirit, had sufficient resources to survive and thrive. This fact strengthens the scriptural case for congregationalism.

In addition to biblical support, congregationalism marshals theological arguments in its support. The headship of Jesus Christ over his body, the church, is one such theological position supportive of congregationalism. The organic connection between Christ and his body, together with the authority that such headship entails, precludes human intermediaries wielding authority over the church. This headship certainly contradicts any ecclesiology that insists on the essential nature of church government. Specifically, it argues against the Catholic view that the bishop is the essence of the church. Dovetailing with the lordship of Christ over his church is the unique mediatorial role of Christ. As Paul explained, “there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:5–6). This unique mediation of Christ, who was both the sacrificer (the eternal high priest of the new covenant; Heb. 7:15–28) and the sacrifice (the once-and-for-all ransom of blood that secures eternal salvation; Hebrews 9–10) seems to preclude any human mediators between God and his redeemed people.[114] The church functions directly under the mediatorial lordship of Jesus Christ.

A second theological support is the priesthood of all believers.[115] As Peter explained to some of the earliest Christ-followers, “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession” (1 Pet. 2:9). Unlike the structure of the old covenant, in which a special caste of men served as priests before God and on behalf of the people of Israel, the new covenant church is composed of Christians, all of whom are considered to be priests. “Rightly understood, this doctrine affirms that the church as a priesthood can enter corporately into God’s presence to seek and discern his will for the church.”[116] This does not negate the importance of the divinely designed leadership pattern of elders and deacons. Indeed, combining this emphasis on the priesthood of all believers with other theological elements, Paige Patterson concludes, “A congregational form of church government, in which the assembly as a whole recognizes and selects its pastors and deacons in response to the prompting of the Holy Spirit, is in keeping with the New Testament instruction regarding the regeneration of all believers, the permanent indwelling of the Spirit in each believer, and the elevation of each believer to the assignment of believer-priest.”[117] Congregational involvement in important ecclesial decisions and activities is underscored by the priesthood of all believers.

In addition to biblical and theological support, congregationalism marshals historical evidence in its support. Though the popular notion that the office of bishop developed quite early in the church has strong historical attestation, such incipient episcopalianism was not the only form of government among the early churches. Congregationalism also had its advocates and practitioners. For example, Clement of Rome, addressing the case of elders who had been appointed to the office of bishop in the church of Corinth “with the consent of the whole church,” chided the congregation for having unjustly removed some of these capable men.[118] Moreover, the Didache gives instructions to Christians to “appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord.”[119] As noted earlier, certain developments led to the demise of early congregationalism: as church leaders like Ignatius and Cyprian responded to heresy and threats of schism by elevating the role of the bishop, as the gap between clergy and laity widened, and as the church and state intertwined more and more, congregationalism did not—many would say could not—survive. It was not until the sixteenth century that it returned with a fury.[120] But it does have strong historical precedent.[121]

Misapprehensions and Misgivings

One common misperception of congregationalism is that it is a thinly veiled form of antinomianism (literally, “against [any] law”); hence, congregationalism is no government of the church. Accordingly, it is seen as promoting rank individualism; that is, congregationalism is defined as “freedom from” anything from which the church and its members wish to be free.

Congregationalism responds to this misunderstanding: “But Congregationalism is not simply freedom from. It is neither a simple freedom from ecclesiastical controls, nor even the right to order our church life as congregations any way we happen to choose. The freedom of the Congregational Way is freedom from the rule of men only so that we can be more completely obedient to the rule of Christ.”[122] In other words, congregational autonomy “is just the positive expression of a more easily examined negative proposition, that being that there is no God-established hierarchical structure above the local church.”[123]

Moreover, any congregational church worthy of the name and obedient to Scripture insists explicitly on the authoritative rule of its head, Jesus Christ; he is the supreme Lord of the church. Furthermore, congregational churches recognize the divinely ordained and provided leadership of pastors/elders. As we will see shortly, no matter how churches envision and live out the interface between pastoral leadership and congregational government, some measure of authority rests with the church officers, who lead in certain areas of the churches. Additionally, congregationalism emphasizes the responsibility of church members to decide on issues in accordance with the will of its head. Speaking of Baptists who advocated congregationalism, Norman Maring and Winthrop Hudson note,

They did so because they believed that Christ intended the full participation of the members of the church in its total life, as implied in the doctrine of the priesthood of believers. They also believed that, through such full participation, a church could be ‘a sensitive and delicate instrument’ for searching out the will of God. It was not that they considered congregational decisions infallible in their dedications of God’s intentions. They believed rather that the full participation of all would provide a check to the distortion occasioned by self-regard, human limitations of knowledge, and vested interests.[124]

Thus, the notion that congregationalism is anarchist is a misunderstanding of this type of government.

A second common misapprehension is that congregationalism promotes pure democracy, meaning that every decision concerning every church issue must be put to a congregational vote.[125] Admittedly, in some forms of congregationalism, absolute democracy is the ideal; however, such is rarely achieved, nor is it the aim in most congregational churches. As Mark Dever explains, a church that is congregational in government is in some ways a democracy, “in that the demos, the people, make decisions.” But he also underscores the dissimilarities between a congregational church and a democracy: “A church is not just straightforward democracy, for in churches there is a common recognition of our fallen state, of our tendency to err, and, on the other hand, of the inerrancy of God’s Word. So the members of a church congregation are democratic, perhaps, only in the sense that they work together as a congregation to try to understand God’s Word.”[126] Furthermore, Dever underscores three spheres of authority in congregational churches: the absolute, sovereign headship of Jesus Christ; the authority of the elders in leading, teaching, praying, and shepherding; and the authority of the members of the church in exercising church discipline, voting on its officers, approving the church budget, and the like.[127] I will return later to how these three spheres interface, and I will directly address P. T. Forsyth’s proposed need to “‘control’ democracy in the light of the cross.”[128] At this point, however, it is sufficient to note that congregationalism does not necessarily mean absolute democracy that calls for every decision concerning every church issue to be put to a congregational vote.

Turning to misgivings concerning this form of church government, Robert Reymond is highly critical of congregationalism for emphasizing “local church autonomy, self-consciously making their independency from each other and from other denominational churches a major reason for claiming ‘bragging rights’ over Presbyterian connectionalism. . . . But where in Scripture is there any mandate at all for such independency among local Christian congregations?”[129] Though Reymond’s criticism is confused, it does offer a warning. Tragically, some congregational churches and denominations flaunt the principle of autonomy and carry it too far, resulting in fierce independence that cuts them off from any and all cooperation with other groups. Sometimes this strict isolationism is the result of a legalistic mindset that demands complete separation from anything and everything that is not one’s own church.[130] Yet, a careful study of the key passage—2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1—to which appeal is commonly made in support of such isolationism reveals that the target of separation is the ungodly world, not genuine Christ-followers and true churches. Another common reason for flaunting independence is that churches do not want to be held accountable and thereby challenged to break with entrenched sin in their midst. To be confronted by another church and exposed for what they really are, is a threat to most churches; thus, under the banner of congregational autonomy, churches decry such “outside interference” and continue to maintain the status quo. This misgiving—and Reymond’s implicit warning—is another reason that prompts me to embrace a modified form of congregationalism that incorporates strong connections between churches (see next chapter). Congregations need the admonishment, rebuke, confrontation, and correction that are fostered to their advantage when other churches are closely connected to them.

As for the criticism of congregationalism itself, the charge of independency is misdirected, relying on a false perception of the idea of independence rather than its proper notion of freedom from authoritative governing structures above the local church level. In this case, the misgiving is really a misunderstanding and thus does not constitute an argument against congregationalism.[131] Moreover, Reymond seems to assume the existence of authoritative governing structures above the local church level, a topic with which I’ve already dealt.

A second frequent misgiving is that congregationalism is oftentimes chaotic; infamously, it fosters an environment in which bitter debates and even church fights break out, especially in congregational or business meetings. Tragically, this concern is far too frequently correct. However, it is not the form of church government that is to blame, but the people involved: “the polity is not the problem; the problem is carnal individuals taking ungodly actions against others. Other polity structures have their own unique ways in which church leaders can suffer mistreatment or conflict can occur.”[132] A variation of this misgiving is that congregationalism is often inefficient: bringing all or even many decisions before the congregation for its consideration and vote can often be unwieldy and place a tremendous burden on the church, even sidetracking it from more important ministries.[133]

There are three responses to this concern. First, the high value placed on efficiency by this misgiving is not necessarily in line with the worldview of Scripture; indeed, it may be more a reflection of an American or Western cultural mindset that is at odds with the biblical emphasis. Indeed, removing decision-making responsibility from the congregation and locating it among bishops (episcopalianism) or presbyteries/synods/general assemblies (presbyterianism) “may eliminate an important ecclesiastical structure that facilitates corporate sanctification.”[134] Cooperation, listening carefully to others, prayer to discern the Lord’s will, learning to forbear with and forgive others, and other valuable attitudes and activities may be fostered by “congregational inefficiency.” Second, congregationalism is called upon to tolerate at least some inefficiency, because “decision-making as to the life, ministry, and mission of a church should not be rigidly separated from the execution or living out of the church’s life, ministry, and mission. Members who are involved in one should also be involved in the other, lest there be an unhealthy hiatus.”[135] The third response is forthcoming in my proposal for a modified congregationalism that places the responsibility for much of the decisions in the rightful hands of a team of elders.

As for a third common misgiving, “Congregationalism is sometimes criticized as being at the mercy of what is called the one-man ministry.”[136] This criticism is often true of one particular form of congregationalism—the single pastor with board of deacon model—that will be the subject of our next discussion. When the lone pastor becomes a dictator, envisions himself as a Moses leading the unenlightened and unspiritual people of the church, usurps the prerogatives specifically delegated to the congregation, accumulates around himself a board consisting of little more than “yes” men, narcissistically dismisses all dissent as evidence of (human, or, according to some, demonic) opposition to his ideal leadership, and spiritually abuses congregational members, the worst of congregationalism rears its ugly head—and destroys churches. Certainly, this worst-case scenario is not endemic to congregationalism, not even to the single pastor–board of deacons model.[137] Concentration of power in one leader who in turn exploits that power for harmful purposes is an abuse of congregationalism (and can be verified in the other two forms of government as well), but it is not an argument against this type of government. But as we will see, the potential for it prompts me to embrace another form of congregationalism—the plurality of elders model.

Varieties of Congregationalism

As anyone who has ever had any experience with congregationalism knows, congregational churches come in a wide variety of models. Indeed, some proponents of congregationalism promote the fact that Scripture presents no one type of congregational church government.[138] Two main models that have historical precedent and find strong proponents today—indeed, a significant debate between proponents of these types is being carried out—are the single pastor–board of deacons model and the plurality of elders model. I address this topic here because it has to do with the nature of a governing body in the church. Though the congregation is vested with authority to govern itself (without the intervention of bishops or governing structures above itself), a significant structure internal to the church also exercises authority to govern in the areas of responsibility delegated to it. This internal structure is either a single pastor–board of deacons, or a plurality of elders.[139]

SINGLE PASTOR WITH BOARD OF DEACONS

In this variety of congregationalism, the church’s leadership consists of one pastor, who is the only elder of the church, and a board of deacons whose main responsibility is to assist the pastor. In most cases, the congregation elects the pastor and the deacons; members are also responsible for approving the church budget, hiring church staff, deciding on philosophy of ministry, confirming property purchases and sales, and so forth. These congregational prerogatives ensure that the church is indeed governed congregationally. But the pastor, with the board of deacons, is responsible for all the decisions and responsibilities stipulated as belonging to him and the board.

Numerous arguments have been offered in favor of the single pastor with board of deacons model of congregationalism. A. H. Strong discussed various “indications that at least in certain churches, the pastor was one in number, while the deacons were more than one in number.”[140] First, he conceded that some of the churches mentioned in the New Testament were led by a plurality of elders, citing Acts 20:17, Philippians 1:1, and Titus 1:5 in support. But he softened the impact of this evidence: “There is, however, no evidence that the number of elders was uniform, or that the plurality that frequently existed was due to any other cause than the size of the churches for which these elders cared. The New Testament example, while it permits the multiplication of assistant pastors according to need, does not require a plural eldership in every case.”[141]

Second, Strong marshaled evidence for a single pastor as head of the church by pointing to biblical passages (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; Gal. 1:19; 2:12) that “seem to indicate that James was the only pastor or president of the church at Jerusalem.”[142] Third, he noted that Scripture makes a distinction between a single pastor and a plurality of deacons in the church when Paul addresses the qualifications for both offices (1 Timothy 3). Paul lists the characteristics that must be true of “anyone who aspires to the office of overseer . . . an overseer must be above approach” (vv. 1–2; cf. Titus 1:7). By contrast, when he later addresses the qualifications for the diaconate, the apostle affirms, “Deacons, likewise, must be dignified” (1 Tim. 3:8; cf. vv. 10, 12). Strong drew attention to the singular term “overseer” (or pastor) and the plural “deacons.”[143] Fourth, he cited the passages in Revelation that mention the “angel of the church” (Rev. 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14), which he took to be the (single) pastor of those churches.[144] Finally, he reasoned that “it would seem antecedently improbable that every church of Christ, however small, should be required to have a plural eldership, particularly since churches exist that have only one male member.”[145] From this, Strong concluded that “a plural eldership is natural and advantageous only where the church is very numerous and the pastor needs assistants in his work.”[146]

Others have offered different support for the sole pastor with plural deacons model of congregationalism. Paige Patterson appealed to the general pattern of God calling one person from among his people so as to lead them. He noted that this pattern has constantly repeated itself through the history of the church, as God has raised up singular leaders like John Chrysostom, Augustine, Jonathan Edwards, and C. H. Spurgeon to direct their churches. Moreover, this pattern of single leadership is true “to the psychology of leadership.” Patterson drew another line of support from the influence of the Jewish synagogue on the early church. Because the synagogue was led by an ἀρχισυνάγογος (archisunagogos)—the head or president—Patterson reasoned that most churches were led by one pastor.[147]

Additionally, Danny Akin appealed to the small size of house churches, arguing that as these small groups multiplied and expanded into additional houses, they would experience a pressing need for additional leadership, which would often be the responsibility of one pastor. Indeed, reasoning from a church planting model that starts churches with one church planter, and reasoning from the challenging reality of small churches, Akin concluded that “there may be only one man who meets the qualifications” for being an elder/pastor in these churches; this becomes another justification for the singular pastor model of church government.[148] Moreover, he pointed to the “pastor-teacher” (Eph. 4:11) as a distinctive office in the local church, emphasizing that one man holds this office. At the same time, he acknowledged the biblical pattern of “a plurality of leaders with a senior leader over them. . . . Even in a plurality-of-elders model there is room and a place for a special leader, a senior-pastor, a pastor-teacher.”[149]

Despite these various arguments in favor of the single pastor with plurality of deacons model of church government, the position and its support are not without their difficulties. A pattern of plurality of elders is established from the New Testament data; all the examples of churches found on its pages were led by a multiple group of pastors, and no church had a single elder.[150] As for the contention that the plurality was due to the size of those churches, conclusive evidence is not forthcoming. While some of the churches were clearly large in size (e.g., the church of Jerusalem), we simply don’t know about the number of church members in most cases. To conclude, therefore, that the number of elders depended on the size of the church, and that small churches had only one pastor, is not supported by the evidence. Furthermore, Strong’s example of James as a paradigm for the sole pastor of the church of Jerusalem fails on two counts. First, it overlooks the fact that James was an apostle, not a pastor, of the church; and second, it fails to note that the church of Jerusalem was led by a plurality of elders (Acts 15:1–29).[151]

Strong’s appeal to the singular use of “overseer” and the plural use of “deacons” in 1 Timothy 3 (cf. Titus 1:7) makes a category mistake, moving illegitimately from a grammatical convention to an ontological conclusion. Paul varies his instructions grammatically, switching from the singular to the plural, but by this stylistic variation he does not intend to indicate anything about the number of pastors (only one) and deacons (more than one) in the church.[152] Moreover, the churches of Ephesus and Crete, who were to be the beneficiaries of Timothy’s and Titus’s attention, were led not by a single pastor but by a plurality of elders (Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5). Concerning the argument that, at the founding of most churches, probably only one man would be qualified to meet the requirements for eldership, we have several counterexamples: the churches established during Paul’s first missionary journey—Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe—were certainly composed of brand new converts (Acts 13:4–14:20); nevertheless, as he returned to visit these recently founded churches toward the end of his journey (14:21–22), Paul and his group “appointed elders for them in every church” (v. 23).[153] Further still, the interpretation that the “angel” of the churches of Revelation denotes the single pastor of those assemblies has low plausibility.[154] Again, a counterexample is the church in Ephesus (addressed in Rev. 2:1–7), which was led by a plurality of elders (Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Tim. 5:17).[155]

As for the evidence proposed by Akin and Patterson, appeal to a general pattern in Scripture cannot preempt a particular pattern that is clearly established for the case at hand. Specifically, though the Bible does present a general pattern of God raising up a special individual to lead his people, the New Testament presents a consistent pattern of plural elder leadership for churches, which is the specific case under consideration. Also, the fact that this general pattern is found repeatedly throughout the church’s history may depend on factors other than that this pattern is the proper, biblically sanctioned model of church government. Moreover, many scholars today question the extent of the synagogue’s influence on the early church, so appeal to its pattern of leadership as a template for the church’s leadership structure is not convincing. Even granting Patterson’s contention that the senior pastor’s role is justified by the parallel with the synagogue’s ἀρχισυνάγωγος (archisunagōgos), the parallelism does not achieve what Patterson seems to think it accomplishes.[156] Furthermore, Paul’s reference to “pastor-teachers” (Eph. 4:11) is not so much about a church office as it is about graciously gifted people given by Christ to the church for its edification (vv. 7–16). Indeed, there is nothing to preclude us from concluding that multiple apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers are found in and equip each and every church. Finally, while Akin’s construal of a biblical pattern of “a plurality of leaders with a senior leader over them” seems to go beyond the evidence, the plurality of elders model is hospitable to that additional element. Thus, Akin’s conclusion is on target: “Even in a plurality-of-elders model there is room and a place for a special leader, a senior-pastor, a pastor-teacher.”[157]

Proponents for the single pastor model point out some advantages to this structure, specifically that when the right man is the pastor and the board consists of well-qualified deacons, the church leadership can be efficient, dynamic, and fruitful while functioning in tandem with a congregation that trusts it and follows its wise decisions. Criticisms include the above-mentioned “one-man ministry” danger, the fact that this model often results in burnout for the pastor, the tendency for church members to grow lax in their responsibilities because of the mentality that the paid professional should be doing the bulk of the ministry, and the posture often adopted by the board of deacons that the pastor is its employee while it exists primarily as a “checks and balances” mechanism that opposes most initiatives of the pastor. While appreciating its strengths and acknowledging the weaknesses of this model, I present another—and, for me, a more viable—model of congregationalism.

PLURALITY OF ELDERS

In this variety of congregationalism, the church’s leadership consists of multiple elders who together carry out the responsibilities of teaching, leading, praying, and shepherding the congregation. All of these men must meet the qualifications for the office of elder (1 Tim. 3:1–7; Titus 1:7–9) and exercise together the authority appropriate to their spheres of responsibility as a “council of elders” (1 Tim. 4:14). Though one of these elders (sometimes called the “senior pastor” or the “lead pastor”) may dedicate himself to ministry much as the pastor in the single-elder model does—preaching much of the time, providing visionary leadership, being responsible for the development of his fellow elders (and church staff, if that group is different from the team of elders)—he works in conjunction with a team that shoulders a great deal of church responsibilities. “This means that many decisions involving the church yet not requiring the attention of all the members should fall not to the pastor alone but to the elders as a whole. While this is sometimes cumbersome, it has the immense benefit of rounding out the pastor’s gifts, making up for some of his deficiencies, supplementing his judgment, and creating congregational support for decisions, leaving leaders less exposed to unjust criticism.”[158]

While this model bears some resemblance to the presbyterian form of church government, two decisive differences distinguish the two. First, in this plurality of elders model, the elders exercise authority and carry out their responsibilities in their local church only; their decisions, policies, and actions are directed at and influence their congregation only. By contrast, at least some of the elders in the presbyterian model exercise authority and carry out their responsibilities both in their local church and in representative bodies above their local church; the elders’ decisions, policies, and actions are directed at and influence all the congregations in the presbytery, synod, and/or general assembly. Accordingly, the extent of the elders’ authority and responsibility is greater in the presbyterian model. Second, in the plurality of elders model, the elders exercise authority and carry out their responsibilities in conjunction with the congregation, whose members also exercise authority for decisions for which they are responsible. In the presbyterian model, the elders who participate in the representative bodies do not do so in conjunction with their local church; the congregation does not exercise any authority in these higher-level structures. Granted, in these structures, the congregations are represented by their elders, but church members have no authority in these representative bodies. Accordingly, the extent of the local church’s authority and responsibility is less (because of its members’ nonparticipation in representative bodies above it) in the presbyterian model.

Several arguments can be advanced for the plurality of elders form of church government. Without exception, every time the New Testament mentions the government of a particular church, the leadership structure is a plurality of elders. From the first mention of elders in the book of Acts (11:30), we find that the church of Jerusalem was led by a group of elders (cf. Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23). This structure was continued by Paul and Barnabas as they established churches during their first missionary journey (Acts 13–14): “When they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed” (14:23). The specific churches were those in Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe.[159] Furthermore, the churches of Ephesus (Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Tim. 5:17), Crete (Titus 1:5), “the Dispersion” (James 1:1; 5:14), and probably others were led by a plurality of elders.[160] Proponents of this model seek to mimic this plurality of elders structure and ask what warrant exists for churches today to break from this consistent biblical pattern.

Historically, reference is found to a plurality of elders leading the earliest churches in Clement of Rome’s Letter to the Corinthians, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas.[161] This evidence is consistent with the clear biblical pattern noted above. Indisputably, this form progressively gave way, first, to monoepiscopacy, with one bishop ruling each church and, later, to Catholic hierarchical episcopacy. While acknowledging this historical development, proponents of the plural elders model interpret it as a lamentable and wrongful falling away from the pattern of church government affirmed by Scripture. Beginning with Calvin and his advocacy of early presbyterianism, and continuing to the Puritans, the plurality of elders model was revived. Proponents of the plural elders form look favorably on this development as a repristination of the church and its government specifically due to the Protestant formal principle of sola Scriptura. Congregationalists differentiate the model from this presbyterian form by locating the council of elders and its authority in the local church only.

An important challenge to this model is that, whereas a plurality of elders is certainly well attested for the earliest churches, this council of elders functioned for these churches at the city level (e.g., the church of Corinth as a whole was led by a plurality of elders), but individual elders bore responsibility for the individual components of those city churches—that is, the house churches. Accordingly, when the whole congregation gathered together for worship, the council of elders presided, but when the church fanned out into smaller meetings in the houses of its members, each house church meeting was overseen by one of those elders (in this more limited assembly, no more than one elder would be needed). While more discussion on this topic awaits the next chapter, this scenario may be acknowledged as a possible reconstruction of the biblical evidence; thus, it would challenge the plurality of elders model and favor the model of a single-elder-led church.

One intramural debate among proponents of the plurality of elders model involves the distinction between “elder-led” and “elder-ruled” churches. As regards the former, a strong emphasis on the responsibilities and duties of the congregation is maintained. While the team of elders has its specific responsibilities, the members of the church have their specific responsibilities as well, and these are fairly substantial; indeed, all major decisions (e.g., electing church officers, hiring pastoral staff, budget, property purchases and sales, church disciplinary matters) are brought by the elders to the members of the church for approval, modification, or disapproval. The leadership of the elders in their sphere of authority interfaces with congregational responsibilities; accordingly, this model could best be termed “elder-led congregationalism.” Concerning the latter approach, “elder-ruled” churches place a strong emphasis on a council of elders that makes most, if not all, of the decisions for the church. Though congregational input may be sought out by the elder team, its decision is final; the elders rule the church. Still, this form of plurality of elders is not equivalent to the presbyterian form, for the reasons discussed above. This elder rule is especially attractive to larger churches in which the mere size of the congregation renders frequent congregational meetings for decisions by church members highly problematic.

As a congregationalist, I hold to the polity of plural-elder-led congregationalism. This position will be discussed further in the next chapter.

___________________

[1]John Knox, “The Order of the Ecclesiastical Discipline,” in The Works of John Knox, ed. David Laing, 6 vols. (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2004), 4.203.

[2]John Webster, Word and Church: Essays in Christian Dogmatics (Edinburgh and New York: T & T Clark, 2001), 192.

[3]Ibid.

[4]Ibid., 192–193.

[5]Ibid., 193.

[6]Ibid., 195.

[7]Ibid., 197.

[8]James R. White, “The Plural-Elder-Led Church: Sufficient as Established—The Plurality of Elders as Christ’s Ordained Means of Church Governance,” in Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity, ed. Chad Owen Brand and R. Stanton Norman (Nashville: B&H, 2006), 257–258.

[9]Jürgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, trans. Margaret Kohl (London: SCM, 1977), 64.

[10]Though some people are reluctant to conceptualize the church as an institution (preferring instead to think of it as an organism), it of necessity possesses certain institutional elements that demand a certain degree of order and structure. As Lightfoot noted, “no society of men could hold together without officers, without rules, without institutions of any kind; and the Church of Christ is not exempt from this universal law” (J. B. Lightfoot, “The Christian Ministry,” in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1953], 81).

[11]Rob Dalrymple, Revelation and the Two Witnesses: The Implications for Understanding John’s Depiction of the People of God and His Hortatory Intent (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011), 112.

[12]Webster, Word and Church, 199.

[13]Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday/Image Books, 1995), 882.

[14]Ibid., 1348.

[15]Webster, Word and Church, 199–200

[16]Ibid., 200.

[17]John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 4.3.1–2.

[18]For example, James Leo Garrett Jr. objects that this classification masks the unique elements of the Catholic polity. Accordingly, he divides his taxonomy of church government into four varieties: the three traditional polities included here with the addition of “papal polity” (James Leo Garrett Jr., Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Evangelical, 2 vols. [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995], 2:583–587).

[19]Constitution and Canons, Together with the Rules of Order, for the Government of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, Constitution, Article I.

[20]The Joint Nominating Committee for the Election of the Presiding Bishop, composed of selected clergy and laity from the House of Deputies and selected bishops from the House of Bishops, is responsible for proposing a minimum of three bishops as possible Presiding Bishop for consideration by the two Houses.

[21]Constitution and Canons, Canon I.2.4 (a).

[22]Ibid., preamble.

[23]Peter Toon, “Episcopalianism,” in Who Runs the Church? Four Views on Church Government, ed. Steven B. Cowan (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 28. Writing from the same ecclesial tradition, Paul Zahl avers that “church questions are penultimate ones in the Bible . . . because the evidence in Scripture is multiple, not necessary, and therefore not universalizable. Anyone who argues in favor of the universality of a particular New Testament polity will always have to devalue or de-emphasize one or another conflicting text” (Paul F. M. Zahl, “The Bishop-Led Church: The Episcopal or Anglican Polity Affirmed, Weighed, and Defended,” in Perspectives on Church Government, 212).

[24]For further discussion, see Roger Beckwith, Elders in Every City: The Origin and Role of the Ordained Ministry (Carlisle, Cumbria, UK; and Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2003), 9–10; J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 193–201.

[25]Toon, “Episcopalianism,” 27.

[26]Ibid.

[27]Ibid.

[28]Ibid., 28. Because I will assess this biblical evidence in my discussion of presbyterianism, I will not comment on it here.

[29]The following discussion is adapted from my Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 590–593.

[30]Ignatius, Letter to the Philadelphians 4 (ANF 1:81), in The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, ed. Michael W. Holmes (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999), 179; cf. idem, Letter to the Magnesians 13 (ANF 1:64).

[31]Idem, Letter to the Ephesians 2 (ANF 1:50) and 20 (ANF 1:57); Letter to the Magnesians 7 (ANF 1:62).

[32]Idem, Letter to the Magnesians 6 (ANF 1:61), in Apostolic Fathers, 153. Ignatius changed the parallelism in his Letter to the Trallians 2 (ANF 1:66–67).

[33]Idem, Letter to the Ephesians 5–6 (ANF 1:51).

[34]The issue at stake was the possibility of the restoration of Christians who had lapsed, or fallen, from the faith during the persecution of the church. Novatian and his party took a hard-line position: it was not possible to restore apostate believers to membership in the church. Cyprian and the Catholic Church held the opposite view: after sufficient confession of their sin of apostasy and penance for evil done, lapsed believers could be readmitted into the church.

[35]Cyprian, Letter 51.24 (ANF 5:333).

[36]Idem, Letter 68.8 (ANF 5:374–375).

[37]Idem, Letter 26.1 (ANF 5:305).

[38]Idem, On the Unity of the Church 6 (ANF 5:423).

[39]Toon, “Episcopalianism,” 26.

[40]Ibid.

[41]Catechism of the Catholic Church, 880–881.

[42]Ibid., 882–883.

[43]Ibid., 886.

[44]Ibid., 861–862.

[45]While it is beyond the scope of this present volume to address the notion of papal infallibility (and other issues of the Catholic Church’s hierarchical form of government), I intend to do so in a forthcoming book: Intrigue and Critique: An Evangelical Assessment of Roman Catholic Theology and Practice (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, forthcoming).

[46]These officers could also be called presbyters and pastors.

[47]White, “Plural-Elder-Led Church,” 258–259; cf. 261–262.

[48]James reappears in Acts 21:17–26, but he speaks in conjunction with the elders of the church, who together direct Paul in showing deference to the Jews. In Galatians 2:9, Paul explains that, “when James and Cephas [Peter] and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.” This shared leadership of three apostles and the division of labor between them and the apostles to the Gentiles is a far cry from episcopacy. But, as noted in my discussion of this form of government, episcopalianism only seeks the seed for its polity in the New Testament, not the fully grown flower.

[49]White, “Plural-Elder-Led Church,” 276. Grudem also expresses this misgiving, though he articulates it in his discussion of objections to presbyterianism. It seems that it also belongs under objections to episcopalianism (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000], 927).

[50]Happily, much of the Worldwide Anglican Communion disagrees with and has condemned the action of the ECUSA, and some regional bishops in both Africa and South America have gladly received these breakaway American parishes under their jurisdiction. This has led to the formation of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), sponsored by the Anglican Church of Nigeria, and the alignment of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin (California) with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. For further discussion and analysis of this distressing situation, see Gary D. Badcock, The House Where God Lives: Renewing the Doctrine of the Church for Today (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 296–301.

[51]Wayne E. Ward, “The Worship of the Church,” in The People of God: Essays on the Believers’ Church, ed. Paul Basden and David S. Dockery (Nashville: Broadman, 1991), 69. He references the 1611 Confession of Faith of the Gainsborough Church founded by John Smyth and at that time led by Thomas Helwys. I suppose it could be argued that the reason early Baptist congregationalists included these elements in their Sunday liturgy was that the episcopalian-structured Catholic Church had maintained that pattern from time immemorial. Coming from this tradition myself, I seriously doubt that that factor entered significantly into English Baptist justification for their order of service. That these elements are set forth in Scripture as the essential aspects of Christian worship was undoubtedly the key reason.

[52]Toon, “Episcopalianism,” 37.

[53]For Catholicism’s denial that Protestant “ecclesial communities” constitute true churches because of their failure to embrace the episcopate with its apostolic succession, see the motu proprio of Pope Benedict XVI, “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church” (July 10, 2007). Available at http://www.vatican.va/romancuria/congregations/

[54]Toon, “Episcopalianism,” 37.

[55]Ibid., 37–38.

[56]Ibid., 38. Toon, an Episcopalian, opts for the third view, that the historical episcopate is of the plene esse of the church, while Zahl, also an Episcopalian, opts for the second view, that the office of bishop is of the bene esse of the church (ibid., 37; Zahl, “Bishop-Led Church,” 210, 213–214).

[57]For example, see the discussion of Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 875–876.

[58]Robert L. Reymond, “The Presbyter-Led Church: Presbyterian Church Government,” in Perspectives on Church Government, 93.

[59]Session comes from the Latin word sedere, to sit. Consistory comes from the Latin word consistorium, which is a church tribunal, and consistere, which is an imperial council.

[60]Synod comes from the Greek word σύνοδος (sunodos), assembly or meeting. In Reformed churches, the general synod is the highest governing body.

[61]The following is a description of the governing bodies and their specific responsibilities of the Presbyterian Church USA.

[62]Book of Order: The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA), part 2. G–10.0102.

[63]Ibid., part 2. G–11.0103.

[64]Ibid., part 2. G–12.0102.

[65]Ibid., part 2. G–13.0103.

[66]E. R. Craven, ed., The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publications, 1906), 354–355.

[67]Ibid., 355–356.

[68]Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 4th rev. and enlarged ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 581.

[69]An example of an Erastian system is the Church of England, with the king or queen as its supreme head.

[70]Ibid., 582.

[71]Ibid., 583.

[72]Ibid.

[73]Ibid.

[74]Ibid.

[75]Ibid.

[76]Ibid.

[77]Ibid., 584.

[78]Ibid.

[79]Ibid. The American edition of the Westminster Confession of Faith takes this position: under article 31, “Of Synods and Councils,” the American version adds, “And it belongeth to the overseers and other rulers of the particular churches, by virtue of their office, and the power which Christ hath given them for edification, and not for destruction, to appoint such assemblies (Acts 15); and to convene together in them, as often as they shall judge it expedient for the good of the Church (Acts 15:22, 23, 25).”

[80]Reymond, “Presbyter-Led Church,” 125.

[81]Ibid., 121; cf. Edmund P. Clowney, The Church: Sacraments, Worship, Ministry, Mission, Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 211–212.

[82]Reymond, “Presbyter-Led Church,” 93.

[83]For example, see Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 591.

[84]Acts 1:15; 2:41, 46, 47; 4:4; 5:14; 6:1,7; 9:31; 12:24; 21:20.

[85]For further discussion, see David W. Hall, ed., The Divine Right of Church Government, rev. ed. of Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici or The Divine Right of Church Government by the Ministers of Sion College, London, December 1646 (Dallas: Naphtali, 1995), 201–216.

[86]Ibid., 217.

[87]For example, see Michael S. Horton, People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 217–220.

[88]Reymond, “Presbyter-Led Church,” 108.

[89]Evidence for the participation of these other representatives may come from the expressions “all the assembly” (Acts 15:12) and “the whole church” (v. 22) referring to people other than the apostles, elders, and Paul and Barnabas. These expressions probably do not refer to the Christians in the church of Jerusalem, for there were too many of them to meet in one place together; rather, these people were other representatives of the churches meeting as the synod.

[90]Reymond, “Presbyter-Led Church,” 98, 108.

[91]Hall, Divine Right of Church Government, 226–234.

[92]Book of Order: The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA), part 2. G–1.0400.

[93]Book of Order: The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA), part 2. G–4.0302.

[94]The perfect participle προεστῶτες (proestōtes) qualifies the noun elders and describes their ruling role.

[95]According to Jerome Quinn and William Wacker, “a presbyter is here defined in terms of his proïstanai [leadership], and this in turn was precisely the term that 1 Tim 3:4–5 used to illustrate the relationship of the episkopos to the church” (Jerome D. Quinn and William C. Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, Eerdmans Critical Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000], 459).

[96]George Knight believes the distinction is based on whether elders have the spiritual gift of teaching; the former are the teaching elders, the latter, the ruling elders: “Although all elders are to be able to teach (1 Tim. 3:2) and thus to instruct the people of God and to communicate with those who oppose biblical teaching (Titus 1:9ff.), the 1 Timothy 5:17 passage recognizes that among the elders, all of whom are able to teach, there are those so gifted by God with the ability to teach the Word that they are called by God to give their life in such a calling or occupation and deserve therefore to be remunerated for such a calling and occupation.” See George W. Knight, “Two Offices (Elder/Bishops and Deacons) and Two Orders of Elders (Preaching/Teaching Elders and Ruling Elders): A New Testament Study,” Presbyterion 11 (1985): 6. But Knight introduces the idea of the spiritual gift of teaching without warrant; there is no hint of this matter in the context.

[97]“The point here is that some (and they are relatively few, one would surmise, because of the doubling of the honorarium) have obviously devoted all their time to this service and have done it well” (Quinn and Wacker, First and Second Letters to Timothy, 459).

[98]Reasons for identifying this verse as the climax of the narrative include the following: (1) It echoes the main theme of the entire book of Acts. (2) The statement is located between two “bookends” repeating the theme of burden: in the preceding verse (Acts 15:10), Paul offers a strong warning about “putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear,” and in the following section James offers his judgment “that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God” (v. 19). This judgment translates into the writing of the letter (vv. 22–29) setting forth the decision—“for it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements” (v. 28)—of the council. As surrounded by these two bookends, the affirmation (v. 11) of salvation by divine grace presents the unburdening of both Jews and Gentiles. (3) The response of the crowd to Paul’s statement—“And all the assembly fell silent” (v. 12)—is Luke’s way of drawing attention to its importance. Something of immense weight has just been communicated. (4) The affirmation itself is completely opposite of what we as readers expect Paul to say. As part of the church of Jerusalem listening to Paul talk about the Gentiles and their conversion to Jesus Christ, we expect the apostle to say, “But we believe that they (i.e., the Gentiles) will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus just as we are.” The reversal is startling, and the shock that overcomes us points to the fact that the climax of the passage has been reached. Everything that has been narrated to this point has been preparatory for Paul’s statement about salvation through the grace of Jesus Christ, and everything else that follows will be the application of this astonishing truth.

[99]Reymond, “Presbyter-Led Church,” 108.

[100]If these others were elders, we would expect that Luke would indicate that fact. He certainly is consistent when mentioning “the apostles and the elders” of the church of Jerusalem (vv. 2, 4, 6, 22, 23).

[101]Reymond, “Presbyter-Led Church,” 98, 108; cf. Darrell L. Bock, Acts, BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007), 511.

[102]Contra Reymond, who contends that the apostles were “acting as elders in the church” (ibid., 108).

[103]Robert L. Saucy, The Church in God’s Program (Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1972), 114.

[104]Baptist Faith and Message, VI.

[105]As far as I can discover, Ignatius (writing in Greek, not Latin) was the first to make this point: “Only that Eucharist that is under the authority of the bishop (or whomever he himself designates) is to be considered valid. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the congregation be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church” (Igantius, Letter to the Smyrneans 8 [ANF 1:89–90], in Apostolic Fathers, 189–191).

[106]W. B. Selbie, Congregationalism (London: Methuen, 1927), 3.

[107]Mark Driscoll, Confessions of a Reformission Rev: Hard Lessons from an Emerging Missional Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 103.

[108]Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 580.

[109]As noted in the chapter on church discipline, Jesus’ instructions certainly do not preclude involvement in the disciplinary process by the leaders—specifically, the elders/pastors—of the church. However, to identify “the church” with its leaders and thus substitute church leaders for church members in this phase of the process, is to do interpretive injustice to Matthew 18:15–20. This is the mistake committed by the presbyterian Robert Reymond, “Response [to James Leo Garrett, Jr., on congregational polity] by Robert L. Reymond,” in Perspectives on Church Government, 198–203. Interestingly, the presbyterian Charles Hodge, commenting on 1 Corinthians 5, maintained that the right of excommunication is “clearly recognized as belonging to the church. It is also clear . . . that this right belongs to each particular church or congregation. The power is vested in the church of Corinth, and not in some officer presiding over that church. The bishop or pastor was not reproved for neglect of discipline; but the church itself, in its organized capacity” (Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians [1857; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1956], 83; cited in James Leo Garrett Jr., “The Congregation-Led Church,” in Perspectives on Church Government, 168).

[110]To object that the church conferred only with the choice and sending of the men to deliver the letter (15:22) misses the bigger point that what was being conveyed in the letter was the decision of the apostles and elders (15:23), a decision with which the church concurred as exemplified in its approbation of the letter-bearing envoys.

[111]In light of these examples, one wonders if Paul’s presentation of the qualifications for both church offices—elders/pastors and deacons/deaconesses—in his letters to Timothy (1 Timothy 3) and Titus (Titus 1:5–9) doesn’t at least imply the need for congregational involvement in the selection of these church leaders. How would Timothy and Titus know whether certain people met these qualifications? Certainly, personal observation of these potential leaders by Paul’s apostolic legates would disclose a good deal about their suitability as elders, deacons, and deaconesses. But surely interaction with “the full number of the disciples” in both Ephesus and Crete would disclose even more.

[112]According to 1 Corinthians 16:3, these envoys were “accredited by letter” by the Corinthian church and “sent” by Paul, so once again we have the interface of congregational involvement with apostolic oversight.

[113]Interestingly, the church of Laodicea received no words of commendation from the Lord (Rev. 3:14–20).

[114]For further discussion, see Saucy, Church in God’s Program, 116–117.

[115]Historically, the concept of the priesthood of believers has been understood in various ways. For a good discussion, see Garrett, Systematic Theology, 2.560–563; Cyril Eastwood, The Priesthood of All Believers: An Examination of the Doctrine from the Reformation to the Present Day (London: Epworth, 1960); Herschel H. Hobbs, You Are Chosen: The Priesthood of Believers (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990).

[116]R. Stanton Norman, The Baptist Way: Distinctives of a Baptist Church (Nashville: B&H, 2005), 97.

[117]Paige Patterson, “Single Elder Congregationalism,” in Who Runs the Church? 141–142.

[118]Clement of Rome, The Letter of the Romans to the Corinthians 44 (ANF 1:16), in Apostolic Fathers, 78–79.

[119]Didache 15 (ANF 7:381), in Apostolic Fathers, 266–267.

[120]While some proponents of congregationalism will point to certain ecclesial groups and movements as evidence of the survival of congregationalism in the interim period between the second and sixteenth centuries, I question this approach. Certainly, Montanism, Novatianism, Donatism, the Albigenses, the Waldensians, the Brethren of the Free Spirit, the Beguines, the Beghards, the Lollards, and other similar groups embraced a spirit of independency from the established church, protested against the hierarchy of the church, and in their own way sought a return to a more “primitive” Christianity. However, with so many other factors contributing to the makeup of these movements, a focus on their congregationalism is reductionistic. An example of this approach is Selbie, Congregationalism, 6–9.

[121]Congregationalism’s influence today is expanding remarkably: “‘The understanding of the church seems to be moving away from the traditional hierarchical model to the (no longer quite so new) participative models of church configuration.’ . . . This has been called the ‘process of congregationalization’ of Christianity” (Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical, and Global Perspectives [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002], 59). He cites Miroslav Volf, After Our Likeness: The Church as an Image of the Trinity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 12; and Russell Chandler, Racing Toward 2001: The Forces Shaping America’s Religious Future (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 210; cf. Badcock, House Where God Lives, 13.

[122]Arthur A. Rouner Jr., The Congregational Way of Life (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1960), 61.

[123]White, “Plural-Elder-Led Church,” 260.

[124]Norman H. Maring and Winthrop S. Hudson, A Baptist Manual of Polity and Practice (Valley Forge, PA: Judson, 1963), 52–53; cited in Garrett, “Congregation-Led Church,”179.

[125]This is Robert Reymond’s understanding of congregationalism, at least the variety endorsed and defended by James Leo Garrett Jr.: “for him the main ‘principle’ that the New Testament teaches respecting polity is that every member of every local congregation votes on all matters that come before the congregation” (Reymond, “Response [to James Leo Garrett, Jr., on congregational polity] by Robert L. Reymond,” 198). This caricature is more than a little over the top, because every congregational church of which I am aware stipulates that congregational meetings may be convened and engage in decision making as long as a quorum of members is present. Depending on the percentage of members that constitutes a quorum (50 percent; 25 percent), churches may legally conduct their business with only a half or even a quarter of their membership present.

[126]Mark Dever, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, new expanded ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004), 226. Similarly, Alec Gilmore writes, “The Church is not, and must never be regarded as, a democracy, for the power is not in the hands of the demos but of the Christos; it is a Christocracy” (Alec Gilmore, “Baptist Churches Today and Tomorrow,” in The Pattern of the Church: A Baptist View, ed. A. Gilmore [London: Lutterworth, 1963], 143; cited in Garrett, “Congregation-Led Church,” 179; cf. Norman, Baptist Way, 87–88.

[127]Dever, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, 226. He cites an early congregationalist manifesto, The Cambridge Platform (1648), 10.3. For a copy of the full document, see Williston Walker, The Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism (New York: Pilgrim, 1991), 217–218.

[128]Anthony Thiselton, The Hermeneutics of Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 501, referring to P. T. Forsyth, Lectures on the Church and the Sacraments (London: Longmans, Green, 1917), 9–25.

[129]Reymond, “Presbyter-Led Church,” 110 (emphasis his).

[130]Such “second degree separation” was a major factor for most fundamentalist churches’ rejection of Billy Graham and refusal to participate in his evangelistic crusades. Because Graham invited so-called liberals to help lead, pray for, and take an active role in the crusades, fundamentalists who could not associate with them decided they could not promote Graham’s crusades.

[131]Cf. White, “Plural-Elder-Led Church,” 260.

[132]Garrett, “Congregation-Led Church,” 192.

[133]Ibid.

[134]Norman, Baptist Way, 108.

[135]Garrett, “Congregation-Led Church,” 192.

[136]Selbie, Congregationalism, 198.

[137]Indeed, the “one-man ministry,” as Selbie calls it, is a reason for the emergent/emerging church’s protest against the modern church—in particular, the seeker-sensitive movement—and its unbiblical fascination with and reliance upon one dynamic leader. As Jason Byassee notes, “Many of Emergent’s original visionaries came out of the Willow Creek-inspired Leadership Network. They wanted to plant new churches but without a great-man figure in charge of thousands of anonymous worshippers” (Jason Byassee, “Emerging from What, Going Where? Emerging Churches and Ancient Christianity,” in Ancient Faith for the Church’s Future, ed. Mark Husbands and Jeffrey P. Greenman [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008], 250).

[138]For example, Daniel L. Akin, “Single-Elder-Led Church,” in Perspectives on Church Government, 25; cf. Patterson, “Single Elder Congregationalism,” 148.

[139]Endless variations on a theme may be verified in congregational churches, which have staff members, a board of trustees, a board of regents, external elders, etc. For simplicity’s sake, I restrict the following discussion to these two models.

[140]A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Philadelphia: Judson, 1912), 3:915. Some of this discussion is adapted from my Historical Theology, 607.

[141]Ibid., 3:915–916.

[142]Ibid.

[143]Ibid.

[144]Ibid.

[145]Ibid.

[146]Ibid.

[147]Patterson, “Single Elder Congregationalism,” 150–151. Patterson follows Strong’s interpretation of the “angel” of the churches of Revelation.

[148]Akin, “Single-Elder-Led Church,” 67.

[149]Ibid., 66, 68. Patterson concurs: “Each assembly needed a single pastor, and this would be augmented as growth dictated. Even when multiple elders were necessary, one of the elders remained the decisive spiritual leader of the flock” (Patterson, “Single Elder Congregationalism,” 134).

[150]This contradicts Strong’s claim that “in certain of the New Testament churches, there appears to have been a plurality of elders” (Strong, Systematic Theology, 3:915 [emphasis mine]). He would be more correct to say, “in all of the New Testament churches. . . .” As James Burtchaell notes, “Few references are made in the earliest Christian literature to individuals who preside over local communities. Instead, authority is most often attributed to the elders as a group.” He lists only eight men in the earliest Christian literature who could be considered a presiding church officer of some type, but even this evidence is disputable. This lack of evidence for presiding officers in the earliest churches must be considered carefully by supporters of the single pastor model (James Tunstead Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church: Public Services and Offices in the Earliest Christian Communities [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992], 306–307).

[151]According to Luke’s narrative in Acts 15, the leadership of the Jerusalem church consisted of “the apostles and the elders” (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23). Four “spokesmen” addressed the gathering of the church: Peter (vv. 7–11), Barnabas and Paul (v. 12), and James (vv. 13–21). Given his association with three apostles, it seems best to consider James to be a part of this apostolic group. Moreover, he is called an apostle in Galatians 1:19 and 2:9, and his writing of the letter of James is in keeping with the office of apostleship.

[152]As an illustration of this point, I give my theology class the following instructions: “If one wishes to pass this course, one must understand the difference between various forms of church government. Furthermore, students must complete successfully all the other assignments.” I assure them that I have no plans to pass only one of them! Most seem relieved by this assurance, but I believe some of them mistake my grammatical convention for actual course grading policies.

[153]This should not be taken as a contradiction to Paul’s instruction that candidates for the office of elder not be new converts (1 Tim. 3:6). That is indeed the ideal, yet, given certain exigencies (e.g., rapid multiplication of new churches in areas in which the gospel is advancing powerfully), this ideal cannot always be realized, and the most spiritually mature of relatively immature new converts may become the elders of the church.

[154]Of the more than sixty instances of the word ἄγγελος (angelos; angel) or ἄγγελοι (angeloi; angels) in Revelation, particularly of the more than fifty uses outside of chapters 2 and 3 (bracketing Rev. 1:20 for the moment, because it serves as an introduction to Revelation 2–3), the referent is clearly angelic, not human, beings, and certainly not church leaders. Even within these two chapters, the plural ἄγγελοι (angeloi) appears once and in a context other than the opening address of one of the seven letters (3:5) and is a clear reference to angelic beings. Given this overwhelming preponderance of evidence for taking ἄγγελος (angelos) as denoting an angel, Strong’s contention (followed by Akin and Patterson) is not well supported.

[155]Strong himself cites the church of Ephesus as an example of an early church led by a plurality of elders (Strong, Systematic Theology, 3:915).

[156]Whereas the New Testament mentions the “ruler of the synagogue” (ἀρχισυνάγωγος; archisunagōgos; singular) in several places (Acts 18:8, 17; Luke 13:14; cf. Luke 8:41), twice it speaks of the “rulers” (ἀρχισυνάγωγοι; archisunagōgoi; plural) of a synagogue (Mark 5:22; Acts 13:15). Adhering to Patterson’s parallelism between the leadership of the synagogue and the leadership of the church, evidence from the government of the synagogue supports both a single pastor and multiple pastors. Furthermore, according to F. F. Bruce, the job description of the president of the synagogue does not correspond all that closely with the usual job description of a single pastor: “An archisunagogos . . . was chosen from the elders of the congregation to take charge of public worship, appoint members of the congregation to lead the prayers and read the lessons, and to invite suitable persons to address the company.” He references Philo, Spec. Leg. 2:62 in support (F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 3rd rev. and enlarged ed. [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990], 302). For further discussion, see Beckwith, Elders in Every City, 34–35; L. I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000), 390–402; Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, 240–244.

[157]Akin, “Single-Elder-Led Church,” 66, 68.

[158]Dever, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, 230–231.

[159]At first, the apostles preached the gospel and established groups of Christ-followers in these cities. On their return trip (following the stoning of Paul and their preaching in Derbe; Acts 14:19–20) Paul and Barnabas revisited the churches they had started, and at that point they appointed elders in each of the churches.

[160]Other churches may include those in “the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1 Pet. 1:1; 5:1) and the churches addressed by the writers to the Hebrews (Heb. 13:7, 17, 24).

[161]Clement of Rome, The Letter of the Romans to the Corinthians 44 (ANF 1:16); Didache 15 (ANF 7:381); Shepherd of Hermas Vision 2.4 (ANF 2:12); Parable 9.27 (ANF 2:152.).

CHAPTER

NINE

A MODEL OF CHURCH GOVERNANCE

Having presented cases for a plurality of elders who teach, lead, pray for, and shepherd the church; the ministry of deacons and deaconesses serving in and through the church; and the role of the church’s members in its congregational polity, in this chapter I shall present a proposal for the governance of such a church. But first I must add a final element to complete my particular expression of church government: strong connections with other churches. By this I mean that churches are to establish and promote strong associations with other churches for the sake of mutual accountability, sharing of resources, cooperative high-impact ministry, assistance in identifying and resolving intrachurch problems, and the like. Such linkage, though strong, does not establish any structure of authority above the local church level; such authority resides in the plural-elder-led congregational government of each individual church. Moreover, “It is not a case of reunion, nor of amalgamation. It is a case of close co-operation while each keeps its own individuality.”[1]

Accordingly, I will now present a model of church governance: a plural-elder-led, deacon and deaconess–served, congregational church with strong connections.

SUPPORT FOR STRONG CONNECTIONS AMONG CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES

I advocate this element of strong connections for several reasons.[2] The first is biblical examples of some type of significant relationship between churches. It is this biblical support that has been used to justify the authoritative governing structures above the local church level in both episcopalianism and presbyterianism. Though I believe that these structures are improper applications of the biblical data, the same Scripture passages (and others, as will be seen) do indeed support my notion of strong associations between churches. A second reason is historical support. Episcopalianism claims nearly two millennia of church history in its support; presbyterianism points to its centuries-long heritage in its favor.[3] This legacy, even though structured improperly, confirms the propriety of strong linkage between churches. A third reason is the historic emphasis on collaboration that is at least written into the statements of faith of even congregationally governed churches and the denominations that are associated with them. Such collaborative emphasis has regularly been a part of many congregationally governed churches and congregationally oriented denominations.[4] In addition to these three reasons, a fourth factor—which could be seen as a confirmation of the propriety of strong connections between churches—is the intense longing for such cooperation in a growing number of churches today. I will explore each of these points in turn.

Biblical Examples

The first reason for strong connections between local churches is the biblical examples of some type of significant relationship between churches. A key passage is, of course, Acts 15. Though both episcopalianism and presbyterianism appeal to the narrative of the Jerusalem council in support of their respective forms of church government, the passage is not adequate to support the structures of the three-tiered monoepiscopal ministry of bishop-presbyters-deacons, the Catholic papal-led hierarchy, presbyteries/classes above local churches, or the presbyterian synod or general assembly.[5] At the same time, the Jerusalem council pushes my ecclesiology to move beyond the simple affirmation of congregationalism, supporting the notion of strong connections between churches.

Specifically, the narrative of Acts 15 emphasizes an association among churches that is focused on and, I believe, nourished by the gospel. As noted in the previous chapter, the incident that provoked the coming together of churches was a challenge to the gospel itself. Accretions to the good news of salvation by grace through faith alone as it pertained to Gentiles embracing Jesus Christ was the controversy stirred up by a group of Christians from the church in Jerusalem, a delegation that claimed to have the backing of the mother church for its message. In response to this troubling situation, the church of Antioch—which had been led by Barnabas (duly appointed by the church of Jerusalem) and Paul (Acts 11:19–26), and which had commissioned them as missionaries (13:1–3)—sent these two apostles and several others to Jerusalem. The initiative taken by the Antioch church was needed because it appeared that the mother church was endorsing a perverted gospel. So serious was this matter that the apostles, the founders and authoritative teachers of the church, had to be consulted.

Taking the initiative and traveling a significant distance, the representatives—and the emphasis here is probably on Paul and Barnabas—were “describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers” in “both Phoenicia and Samaria” (Acts 15:3). This report set “the tone for the council to follow. Gentile conversion is a positive thing that God is doing.”[6] Against this felicitous development, the perversion of the gospel by the group from Jerusalem would be seen as an intrusion into the fruitful Gentile missionary endeavor.

Eventually, the delegation from the church of Antioch arrived in Jerusalem and “were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders” (Acts 15:4). This act of warmhearted Christian fellowship exhibited the sense of unity that existed between the early churches. As God’s work of redemption among the Gentiles was rehearsed in the church, the controversy again raised its ugly head (15:5), prompting the apostles and the elders to consider the matter (15:6). Four apostles intervened decisively in the council. Initially, Peter recounted how God had used him to first bring the gospel to the Gentiles, a reference to the conversion of Cornelius that had taken place “in the early days” (about a decade earlier) according to divine appointment (15:7, recalling Acts 10–11). Next, Barnabas and Paul related how God had used them to evangelize the Gentiles (15:12, recalling 15:3) accompanied by signs and wonders; such miraculous activity was another indication of divine approval. Finally, James appealed to precedent (God took from the Gentiles “a people for his name”; 15:14) and Scripture (“the words of the prophets”; 15:15, from which Amos 9:11–12 is cited [Acts 15:16–17]) for historical and biblical warrant for this divine work among the Gentiles.[7]

Specifically, Peter underscored (Acts 15:8–11) that the gospel is the message of salvation by divine grace that is received by faith and faith alone. Indeed, God’s giving of the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles, like his giving of the Spirit to the Jewish believers on Pentecost, came as a result of divine cleansing by faith—apart from circumcision. Peter’s correlative warning focused on the historical reality that the divine work had always been appropriated by faith, and he underscored the disastrous consequences for the people of Israel when they lost sight of this truth and added an unbearable “yoke on the neck” (circumcision and obedience to the law) to the good news. His shocking, counterintuitive statement (“But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will”; v. 11) constitutes the climax of the narrative and emphasizes the point of the council. On the basis of Peter’s account and the testimony of Barnabas and Paul, and in accordance with Scripture, James extrapolated from the Jewish failure to be freed by circumcision and the law to address the precarious situation under discussion that threatened to “trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God” (v. 19). The same error could not be repeated with regard to Gentile people of God. Accordingly, “no greater burden” than several dietary restrictions and an injunction against sexual immorality would be laid on the Gentile Christians, and this judgment was made out of deference that should be shown to the Jewish people, with whom the Gentile churches would certainly come into contact (vv. 19–21, 28–29).

These apostolic interventions were decisive in the deliberations. That the decision “seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church,” as exemplified in their mandate of envoys to other churches (Acts 15:22) indicates that a consensus was achieved.[8] The point of this consensus is to underscore the unity of the church in reiterating the gospel and in forwarding, rather than capitulating to obstacles to, the Gentile mission. Just as readers of the narrative would expect, when the letter—a “brother-to-brother or community-to-community correspondence”[9]—was delivered to the churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (and other cities; 16:4) and read to those congregations gathered together, the Gentile Christians “rejoiced because of its encouragement” (15:31). No doubt such joy resulted not only from the limitation of the restrictions to four specific matters but also because the accretions to the gospel—circumcision and obedience to the law of Moses—were not required. The result was the blessing of God: “so the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily” (16:5). The strong connections between these churches paved the way for expansion of the cause of Jesus Christ in the planting and strengthening of “true gospel” churches.

Accordingly, strong association, exemplified in the following areas, is affirmed in Acts 15: a church addresses a problem that allegedly originated with representatives from another church; warmhearted Christian fellowship is exhibited by a church welcoming representatives from another church; a consensus is reached through the prompting of the Holy Spirit and human decision, demonstrating and maintaining the unity of the churches; the result is a fostering of the mission of the churches and blessing from God.

Beyond this critical passage, other biblical examples support strong connections between churches. In his opening address “to the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus,” the apostle Paul notes that those to whom he writes are “called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours” (1 Cor. 1:2). Because there is a common Lord upon whom all Christians in churches everywhere call, those churches are bound together in holiness. A concrete part of this strong association was the sharing of resources between churches. One such resource was an itinerant group of teachers like Apollos (Acts 18:24–28; 1 Cor. 16:12) and Prisca/Priscilla and Aquila (Rom. 16:3; 1 Cor. 16:19), who would travel from church to church teaching the true faith and being hosted by the churches to which they ministered (3 John 5–8, 10).[10] Another resource was financial; churches would share materially with other churches or Christian workers. Two outstanding examples of this partnership were the economic relief provided for the Jerusalem church by the churches of Galatia (1 Cor. 16:1–4) and Macedonia and Achaia (Rom. 15:25–28; 2 Corinthians 8–9) and the financial support for the apostle Paul (Rom. 15:24; 1 Cor. 16:5–7; 2 Cor. 1:15–16; 11:7–9; Phil. 4:15–20). These concrete examples further illustrate the value and wisdom of strong connections between churches.

Lessons Learned from Episcopalianism and Presbyterianism

The second reason in support of strong connections is lessons learned from the governmental polities of both episcopalianism and presbyterianism, lessons that have prompted congregational churches toward cooperation. Speaking of congregationalism in the early part of the twentieth century, W. B. Selbie notes, “It no longer stands where it did, nor are its emphases what they were in its earlier days. It has learnt much and copied wisely from the connexional Churches, and has ceased to write on its banners Independency as its most characteristic motto.”[11] From episcopalianism, important lessons (some of which may also be learned from presbyterianism) include a clear and well-structured system of authority, a leadership that is dedicated to the care of pastors, a national or even worldwide communion that offers a visible sign of unity, and an office that champions orthodoxy.[12] From presbyterianism, important lessons (some of which may also be learned from episcopalianism) include local church accountability to the larger church, the importance of (and biblical warrant for) a plurality of elders serving a local congregation, the cooperative ministry of interdependent churches, and a system of checks and balances.[13] Although concrete actualizations of episcopalianism and presbyterianism may manifest these lessons to a greater or lesser degree, the theoretical lessons are important for congregational churches to learn. Unity, interdependency, concern for and care of church leaders, accountability, and the like are core biblical values and, as such, must be adhered to and fostered in congregationalism. Strong connections between churches that are congregational in polity go a long way to realizing such characteristics.

Historical Precedents

The third reason in support of strong connectionalism focuses on the historic emphasis on collaboration that is at least written into the statements of faith of congregationally governed churches and the denominations associated with them. Moreover, such collaborative emphasis has regularly been a part of many congregationally governed churches and congregationally oriented denominations. I will survey just a few from my own baptistic tradition, used to illustrate this cooperative emphasis.

The First London Confession of Faith (1644) was explicit about the cooperation that should characterize churches: “although the particular congregations are distinct and several bodies, every one a compact and knit city in itself; yet are they all to walk by one and the same rule, and by all means convenient to have the counsel and help one of another in all needful affairs of the church, as members of one body in the common faith under Christ their only head.”[14] The Second London Confession of Faith (1677/1688), closely following the Westminster Confession of Faith in general and the Savoy Declaration in particular on the doctrine of the church, affirmed (section 2):

Saints are bound to maintain a holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification; as also in relieving each other in outward things, according to their several abilities and necessities: which communion, though especially to be exercised by them in the relations wherein they stand, whether in families or churches, yet as God offers opportunity, is to be extended to all the household of faith, even all those who in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus; nevertheless their communion one with another as saints does not take away or infringe the title or propriety, which each man has in his goods and possessions.[15]

This emphasis continued fairly steadily and appears in the latest version of the Baptist Faith and Message (2000). Section 14 on cooperation affirms,

Christ’s people should, as occasion requires, organize such associations and conventions as may best secure cooperation for the great objects of the Kingdom of God. Such organizations have no authority over one another or over the churches. They are voluntary and advisory bodies designed to elicit, combine, and direct the energies of our people in the most effective manner. Members of New Testament churches should cooperate with one another in carrying forward the missionary, educational, and benevolent ministries for the extension of Christ’s Kingdom.[16]

Such statements could be multiplied, but these examples suffice to establish the fact that cooperation between congregationally governed churches and the denominations associated with them enjoys a strong historical precedent.[17] This is the third reason why I favor strong connectionalism between churches today.

Intense Longing for Cooperation

A fourth factor, or confirmation of the propriety of strong connections between churches, is the intense longing for cooperation—as strong as it is for interdependence as it is against the fierce independence and exaggerated autonomy promoted by rugged American individualism—that is in evidence in a growing number of churches today.[18] I have found that some pastors and churches desire deeply to live life and engage in ministry together, repudiating the fierce autonomy that has typified many independent churches in the past. They sense that strong association is more biblical than the far too prevalent reality of intensely independent churches competing with one another and denouncing the attempts of other churches to intervene in their local matters, even when such intervention is sorely needed. Indeed, these pastors and churches often feel that the latter reality smacks more of American cultural icons—autonomy, individualism, freedom—than biblical values of unity, harmony, submission, and interdependence. Such strong connections are often fostered through the formalized structures for cooperation that currently exist; for example, pastors and their churches come together to serve in a soup kitchen sponsored by their local ministerial group, and join in church planting initiatives through their state association. For those who complain that these formal structures are bureaucratically heavy-handed, ponderously slow, and incapable of offering realistic help, new networks may be forged to develop this strong linkage.

A PROPOSAL FOR THE GOVERNANCE OF CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES

As for what my model of a plural-elder-led, deacon and deaconess-served, congregational church with strong connections would look like, I offer the following diagram and explanation (table 9.1):

TABLE 9.1 Proposed Model for Congregational Church Government

Jesus Christ

exercising ultimate headship authority

Elders

teaching, leading, praying, shepherding

Deacons/Deaconesses

serving in the ministries of the church

Congregation

engaging in designated decision making

First and foremost, Jesus Christ is the head of the church. Though this should go without saying, the sinful tendency for churches to forget that they must be about the purpose of Christ and not their own agendas compels me to state the obvious. Moreover, this recognition of the ultimate authority of Jesus Christ is not a mere perfunctory nod to his sovereignty over the church. Rather, the reality is worked out as churches pray fervently and seek intensely the mind of Christ for them. Church pastors, servants, and members seek always to make Christ’s will their preeminent focus. Core ministries and functions that are necessary to accomplish this sovereign design for the church—worship, preaching and teaching, missional endeavors, prayer, and the like—must be actualized in all churches. Accessory ministries must be subjected to Christ’s specific plan for each specific church, and none of these adjunct functions may be considered sacrosanct. A particular ministry may be important for a season, but after it has run its course and becomes unfruitful, it must be disbanded, in accordance with the will of Jesus Christ.

In terms of human leadership, elders exercise their responsibilities—teaching, leading, praying, and shepherding—in their sphere of authority. Practically speaking in terms of teaching, elders fulfill this duty, for example, by preaching during the Sunday service(s), teaching Bible studies and Sunday school classes, resolving theological disputes, engaging in Word-centered small-group discipleship and personal mentoring, studying Scripture as an elder team, and modeling submission to the Word. Practically speaking in terms of leading, elders exercise oversight in all areas designated to them, which may include managing the pastoral/staff teams,[19] developing the budget, executing the church’s philosophy of ministry, approving new ministries, developing potential new elders, and the like.

Practically speaking in terms of praying for the sick, the pastors should make themselves available to the sick members of the church and let them know of this ministry of prayer for them. As the elders engage in this work on behalf of the sick, they anoint with oil, pray with faith, urge confession when the sickness is linked to sin, and encourage the sick to entrust themselves to the Great Physician Jesus. Practically speaking in terms of shepherding, pastors provide excellent (though still imperfect) examples of Christlike living, nourish the church by teaching the Word of God, check the spread of false teaching, direct the process of church discipline, enforce the church’s decisions with regard to discipline, and the like.

Deacons and deaconesses, by contrast with yet complementary to elders, engage in all the other areas of service in the church. Practically speaking, deacons and deaconesses engage in men’s and women’s ministries, children’s and youth ministries, worship ministries, missional ministries, bereavement ministries, targeted ministries (singles, seniors, sports, fine arts), mercy ministries, and the like. As I envision the diaconate, a significant number of deacons and deaconesses serve in and through the church, and congregational members are regularly encouraged and equipped to engage in the multifaceted and many ministries of the church, leading to a steady number of them (as they become qualified, of course) becoming recognized and serving as deacons and deaconesses.

In addition to the above-noted areas of responsibility, one other sphere exists and exercises significant authority in the church: the congregation. Though the list will vary from church to church, the members of the church may have the following broad responsibilities:[20] acceptance of new people into the membership of the church and removal of unrepentant members through the process of church discipline;[21] evaluation and confirmation of candidates for church offices;[22] and evaluation and confirmation of proposed changes to the statement of faith, constitution, bylaws, and philosophy of ministry. Further responsibilities include evaluation and confirmation of missionaries sent out by the church, and of representatives of the church to other churches and denominational meetings; and evaluation and confirmation of the proposed annual budget, the buying and selling of property, and any major changes to the physical plant.

These responsibilities pertain to the sphere of authority of the congregation. These specific duties should be written in the church constitution or governing document so as to prevent confusion as to which responsibilities belong to the membership and which do not. The elders do not have the prerogative to usurp these congregational responsibilities. For example, if members have the duty to approve the annual church budget, the elders cannot enact a budget without congregational affirmation. At the same time, the congregation may not usurp the responsibilities that pertain to the council of elders. As Paul instructed the church, “We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves” (1 Thess. 5:12–13). Addressing the congregation as a whole, the apostle requests having a very high, loving regard for its leaders because of their hard work (cf. 1 Tim. 5:17), their oversight of the assembly, and their fervent exhortation that spurs on the church toward Christlike maturity.[23] The follow-up imperative to be at peace reflects the fact that sinful people tend toward tension that can rip apart a church, and Paul urges that the congregation and the leaders work hard to avoid conflict and division (cf. Eph. 4:3). Accordingly, the congregation should follow the direction and submit to the oversight of its leaders.

This same idea is addressed in two passages in the letter to the Hebrews: “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. . . . Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you” (Heb. 13:7, 17). Two groups of leaders are envisioned in this exhortation: the congregation is urged to remember those who first communicated the Word of God to them. Reflection on those leaders as wholly devoted followers of Christ provides an example of faith for the congregation to imitate. The congregation is also exhorted to follow and obey their current leaders, for they bear the responsibility to lead the church. These concerned leaders carry out their duty by tirelessly watching over the congregation. One day these leaders will give an account of their work before God, and two options are envisioned: rendering account with joy because of congregational obedience and submission, or rendering account with groaning because of congregational disobedience and rebellion. The actualization of the first (and preferred) option entails the church’s complying with and yielding to its leaders.

These biblical injunctions strongly indicate that a modification of the wistful “pure democracy” form of congregationalism is warranted. This “absolute democracy” is exemplified in churches that demand congregational approval for every matter, including the smallest expenditures and the most minor decisions. In this situation, the duly established leadership—pastor, board of deacons, team of elders—has no authority to carry out its responsibilities in its sphere of authority. Rightfully, P. T. Forsyth “speaks of a need to ‘control’ democracy in the light of the cross.”[24] He explains that “no society which gives Christ the regal place the Church does can be a democracy. It is an absolute monarchy. Less might be said by us about freedom, and more about obedience in the spirit of freedom. . . . The Church . . . is not a democracy. . . . It is based on total surrender to an absolute monarch and owner in Christ.”[25] Moreover, the case for pastors who exercise authority in their sphere of responsibility has been well made, and the congregation must follow its divinely appointed leaders and the direction they set. This submission to the church’s leadership is part and parcel of the church’s surrender to Christ’s lordship.

For this reason, my proposal circumscribes the sphere of responsibility of the congregation. The church designates the specific areas that require the evaluation and confirmation of its members. Furthermore, none of these areas may be allowed to encroach upon the specific designated responsibilities of the elders in their teaching, leading, praying, and shepherding. Certainly, congregational input may be sought in many areas over which the pastors are responsible, but this input does not entail congregational approbation or disapproval of those matters. The thrust of this limitation of congregational evaluation and confirmation is to permit and encourage the elders to exercise appropriate authority in areas that have been designated as their responsibility. Still, this proposal is not that of elder-rule (which would intentionally exclude congregational evaluation and confirmation of pastoral decisions) but of elder-led congregationalism.

Another element of limitation of the sphere of responsibility of the congregation concerns who constitutes the members of the church. In this regard, I propose a two-tiered membership structure. On the one hand, all those who have made a credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord and have been baptized may become members of a church. On the other hand, only those who are approved may be voting members of that church. Such approbation comes by means of a membership process and is retained through regular participation in the life of the church. This process is not exclusionary but is intended to prepare all members to become voting members, and as long as they remain active in church life they are allowed to participate in church decision making. The membership process might include, for example, a presentation of (1) the gospel, along with discernment of its appropriation through repentance and faith, to ensure that those who desire to become members of the church know Jesus Christ in a saving manner; (2) the church’s history, doctrinal statement, mission and/or vision, core values, philosophy of ministry, governing structure, personnel, constitution and bylaws, and the like; (3) expectations or duties of members (e.g., regular attendance, giving, missional engagement); and (4) benefits of church membership (e.g., member care, prayer, mentoring, serving in certain ministries [e.g., teaching] and church offices, church discipline). Furthermore, the process may result in participants building relationships with other people seeking voting membership, a spur toward church unity and mutual accountability. Other elements in the membership process may include helping members to identify their spiritual gifts, placing them into areas of ministry, teaching them sound doctrine when their awareness of theology is lacking or weak, and the like.[26] Standards for what it means to be actively engaged in the life of the church and thus qualified to vote must be established and written in the church’s constitution and bylaws.

I have two reasons for such regulation of who constitutes a church’s voting members. First, congregational decision making is intended to be in accordance with and reflect the will of Jesus Christ and the proposed direction of the church as determined prayerfully and wisely by its leadership. The discernment that is needed for such decision making requires some level of maturity on the part of those voting. It is hard to see how new Christians, lacking biblical knowledge and being unfamiliar with the church, can vote responsibly on important issues set before the congregation.[27]Certainly, they may be members of the church, but they are not yet voting members. Second, coup attempts to overthrow the church’s leadership by rallying members who have not attended the church for years, perhaps even decades, must be thwarted. Ideally, a church should exercise discipline against such inactive members, removing them from its membership roll. In lieu of such drastic action, however, another structure should be in place to prevent such underhanded abuse of membership status. Making a distinction between members—inactive people may still retain this designation—and voting members—those who have been prepared for participation in church decision making and are active in the life of the church—would preclude the troublemakers from suddenly showing up for a vote and wreaking havoc in the church.

So my proposal is for an elder-led congregationalism characterized by a chastened form of democracy. Such chastening is self-imposed; the church intentionally designates what are to be the responsibilities of the congregation, and those responsibilities may not usurp the specific designated responsibilities of the elders in their teaching, leading, praying, and shepherding. Additionally, the church prepares its members to be voting members, well grounded in biblical truth and thoughtful in terms of the direction of the church as sovereignly determined by its head, Jesus Christ, and as discerned by its pastors. Furthermore, the church is served by deacons and deaconesses engaged in a multitude of ministries. Finally, the church is strongly connected to other churches, expressing unity and interdependence, cooperating together in high-impact ministry, praying for and with one another, and being helped by mutual accountability and shared resources.

EXCURSUS: MULTISITE CHURCHES

One of the most interesting and important developments in contemporary approaches to establishing and expanding churches is the phenomenon of multisite churches.[28] This topic ties in well with the current discussion because the structure of multisite churches fosters strong connections and highlights the interdependence and unity of various venues as one church. Furthermore, this phenomenon is verified among churches that are structured according to episcopalian,[29] presbyterian,[30] and congregational polities.[31]

The operative definition of a multisite church comes from the first widely distributed book on the topic, The Multi-site Church Revolution: “A multi-site church is one church meeting in multiple locations—different rooms on the same campus, different locations in the same region, or in some instances, different cities, states, or nations. A multi-site church shares a common vision, budget, leadership, and board.”[32] As this definition indicates, this phenomenon is composed of several varieties of multisite churches: “For some churches, having multiple sites involves only a worship service at each location; for others, each location has a full range of support ministries. Some churches use video-cast sermons (recorded or live); others have in-person teaching on-site. Some churches maintain a similar worship atmosphere and style at all their campuses, and others allow or invite variation.”[33] Though not an exhaustive list, the following models are common among multisite churches:[34]

- video-venue model: on the same campus, multiple sites employ videocast sermons (either live or recorded) while offering distinct worship services (differentiated by language, music style, and/or other factors).[35]

- regional-campus model: in the region (e.g., Minneapolis/St. Paul) the experience of the originating campus is replicated in other campuses. This model is often adopted because of space constraints at the originating campus and/or the church’s missional commitment to extend the gospel and its ministries to other communities in the geographical area. This model may be combined with the first model such that the sermons are (always, often) videocast from the originating campus, or combined with the third model such that the sermons are preached by members of the teaching team.[36]

- teaching-team model: a strong teaching team is responsible for preaching at the multiple sites on the same campus or at the other campus(es). This model does not employ videocast sermons. Instead, several teaching pastors—one (or more) fixed at each campus and responsible for the preaching at that site, or a team that moves from site to site—share the load for this aspect of the church’s ministry.[37]

Though current statistics are hard to obtain, the best estimates place the number of multisite churches at somewhere in the five thousand range, with predictions that in the next few years that number could reach a staggering thirty thousand churches.[38] Whereas there is much to question about this development,[39] and significant specific points of criticism have been voiced—it smacks of franchising and branding the church; it minimizes the importance of doctrine; it makes startling claims for its ability to rescue the evangelical church in a postmodern society; it relies on faulty conceptions and principles of church growth; it fails to provide adequate pastoral care for church members[40]—I believe that both biblical and theological warrant can be marshaled for multisite churches. I will present this support and then discuss a model of a multisite church.[41]

Biblical Support

Three times in the Pauline corpus (Rom. 16:5; Col. 4:15; Philem. 2) the apostle, as he sends his greetings, employs the expression ἡ κατ’οἶκον . . . ἐκκλησία (hē kat’oikon ekklēsia), or “the church that particularly meets in the house” (of Prisca and Aquila, Rom. 16:5; of Nympha, Col. 4:15; of Philemon, Philem. 2).[42] The same expression is found a fourth time in a Pauline greeting, but on this occasion it is “the church that particularly meets in the house” (of Aquila and Prisca, 1 Cor. 16:19) that sends the greetings. Proponents of house churches, relying on these passages, take house churches to be the basic unit or building block of the church in a location; that is, many house churches in the city of Corinth (for example) composed the church of Corinth. This idea is wrong, however, because Paul is not addressing “the church in the house,” implying the existence of several or many other churches in different houses. Rather, he is referencing “the church that specifically gathers in a particular house”;[43] that is, the church in Corinth—the fundamental unit—expressed its life and ministry through meetings that took place in the houses of its members, and it is to one of these gatherings of the church that he sends his specific greetings (or, in the fourth case, it is one of these gatherings that sends its specific greetings). If I may be permitted a little conjecture as to the actual locations of its smaller gatherings, the church of Corinth would gather regularly in “the house of a man named Titius Justus” (Acts 18:7), the home of Crispus (v. 8), and the house of Stephanas (1 Cor. 16:15).[44] These “church gatherings” distributed among the houses stood in contrast with the “whole church” assembling together, probably in the home of Gaius (Rom. 16:23; 1 Cor. 14:23). Importantly, “each of the home-based groups included only parts of the church, i.e. a subset of its membership.”[45] Still, each home based gathering was a legitimate gathering of the church of Corinth.

In addition to the four times the expression is used in the Pauline corpus, Acts 2:46 employs it, and with this passage comes the strongest biblical support for the multisite structure. Why did the Jerusalem church meet in the temple and also κατ’οἶκον (kat’oikon), “from house to house?”[46] That is, why did this church gather all together and also fan out into smaller gatherings in the houses of its members? As Luke explains, “they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42), they pooled their resources and supported the poor in their midst (vv. 44–45), they worshiped God (v. 47), and so forth. So, in this passage we have an example of a church of Christ-followers who, for the purposes of teaching the Word, edification, the Lord’s Supper, prayer, giving, and the like, were dispersed into various dwellings. Such distributed meetings were still the church of Jerusalem.[47]

The application of this discussion to multisite churches should be clear: a church—e.g., Harbor Presbyterian Church, San Diego—distributes itself into several sites—Downtown, Uptown, Chula Vista, La Jolla, Carmel Valley, Mira Mesa, Mid-city—and is legitimately one church with various sites.

Theological Support

A theological case for multisite churches can be developed from two areas: the church’s missional characteristic and its unity. Multisite churches, grasping the missional identity of the church, are designed with the specific missional purpose of reaching their city/region with the gospel as a community; this is often done with sites targeting specific areas of or groups within a city. In a sense, multisite church missionality reverses the trend that takes people out of their missional/relational networks in order to attend the church and establishes campuses at multiple sites so as to affect all the neighborhoods in the city/region.[48]

Furthermore, growth that is from God is a blessing, not a curse, and a church that is experiencing God-given growth must expand and restructure so as to accommodate this growth and minister effectively to the many people coming to Christ. Theologically, that church is responsible for the ongoing instruction in the Word, discipleship, edification, and deployment on mission of the new Christians in its midst. Accordingly, Bethlehem Baptist Church, because of its experience of significant, rapid growth, has opted “for ‘spreading’ by multiplication as opposed to the more comfortable mindset of expansion by centralized enlargement.” Thus, its vision for extension encompasses multiplication of “churches and campuses,” that is, creation and development of a multisite church in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area and church planting elsewhere, but not (physical) expansion of its downtown Minneapolis location.[49] The criticism that the solution to such sizeable growth is church planting overlooks an important reality: it is difficult to send away these new Christians to other—even daughter—churches, whose church planters usually locate a significant distance away from the mother church (in such cases, the presence of these daughter churches cannot relieve the pressure of the growth of the mother church) and/or have planted churches that are still relatively immature and incapable of attracting and handling growth from the mother church.[50]

Accordingly, the multisite approach is a theologically supported response to significant God-given growth of churches that embrace their missional identity.

The New Testament emphasis on unity, cooperation, and interdependence certainly addresses the sanctified reality that should characterize churches individually and, as I have proposed, in close association with one another. Because of the commonalities—e.g., mission, vision, finances, leadership—shared among their sites, multisite churches embody these biblical virtues in concrete ways.[51] Specifically, the pastoral teams of the various sites engage in ministry together by meeting regularly, sharing ministerial resources, encouraging personal accountability, fostering pastoral cooperation through the preparation of sermons together, addressing problems as a team, praying together, and the like. Members in general also experience this unity as they have a well-developed sense of a common presence of their church throughout the various venues, all of which are focused on the same worship, the same mission, and the same community, undergirded by shared resources.[52]

A Multisite Church Model

As a model of a multisite church, let me use my church, Sojourn Community Church in Louisville, Kentucky, which distributes itself into weekly gatherings at four sites: in midtown Louisville (St. Vincent’s), East campus, Jeffersontown, and New Albany (IN).[53] We promote this multisite structure for the very same reasons discussed above: preaching the gospel, celebrating the Lord’s Supper, praying, giving, and the like. Additionally, Sojourn gathers all together at various times, particularly celebrating Good Friday together at gatherings at the Louisville Memorial Auditorium (one of the few affordable venues in Louisville that can accommodate all the people from the various campuses gathering in one location).

Under the sovereign direction of Jesus Christ, its head, Sojourn Church is led by a plurality of elders. This council is composed of the elders from the four sites; as a team, it is responsible for teaching, leading, praying, and shepherding the church in its multiple locations. Four of these elders constitute the executive elder team, which is responsible for Sojourn Church in general and the rest of the council of elders in particular. Some elders are paid while others are not; four are the campus pastors who preach primarily at their sites but often preach at the other campuses; all have specific responsibilities at their campuses, but some facilitate ministries throughout all four campuses; all shoulder together the leadership for the entire church in the areas designated as their responsibilities. Coming together regularly, the elders support one another in prayer, share ministerial resources, encourage personal accountability, prepare sermons together, address intrachurch problems, distribute monies from a shared budget, and the like. Moreover, the church is served by both deacons and deaconesses, who engage in ministries—e.g., community groups, mercy ministry, children and youth ministries, men’s and women’s ministries, connect/assimilation ministries—at their specific sites. In terms of congregational responsibilities, members have the duty to approve key decisions—e.g., the annual budget, changes to the constitution, expansion of the physical plant—brought to them by the elders

Sojourn Church exists in multiple locations for the purpose of reaching Louisville and its surrounding environs. Its strong sense of missional identity translates into the church as a whole reaching out to the area’s residents, including adding other sites to expand the church’s reach into heretofore outlying areas of the region. Furthermore, Sojourn Church directs its own church planting network for the purpose of launching new churches both in the United States and around the world.[54]

___________________

[1]P. T. Forsyth, The Church, the Gospel, and Society (London: Independent Press, 1962), 48.

[2]For further discussion, see Richard Field, Of the Church, 5 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1847–1852), 1:85–86.

[3]Only if one is completely biased in favor of congregationalism, and completely dismissive of both episcopalianism and presbyterianism, can one fail to see at least some good elements in these other two forms of church government.

[4]Douglas Horton, speaking as a congregationalist, even claimed such cooperation to be characteristic of congregationalism: “The feature of congregationalism . . . which rescues it from independency, unbalanced and absolute, is the chain of mutual recognitions which link the individual churches together” (Douglas Horton, Congregationalism: A Study in Church Polity [London: Independent Press, 1952], 9).

[5]See chapter 8 for discussion of these forms of church government and their use of Acts 15.

[6]Darrell L. Bock, Acts, BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007), 495. As Bock underscores, the narrative flow begins with the initial incursion of the gospel into the Gentile world (Acts 10–11), develops with Paul’s first missionary journey to the Gentiles (Acts 13–14), and is reinforced with the Jerusalem council (Acts 15) that sets the stage for the expansion of the mission to the Gentiles (Acts 16ff.).

[7]Explaining the citation of Amos at this juncture in the narrative, Bock states, “This new community [the church] is in continuity with the promise made to Israel of the past but is a fresh work of God (Matt. 16:16–20) and results in a new work and institution. . . . Thus James argues that this Gentile inclusion is part of the plan of Davidic restoration that God through the prophets said he would do. The prophets affirm what is taking place now” (ibid., 503, 504).

[8]Again, the objection that the church conferred only with the choice and sending of the men to deliver the letter (15:22) misses the bigger point that what was being conveyed in the correspondence was the decision of the apostles and elders (v. 23), a decision with which the church concurred as exemplified in its approbation of the letter-bearing envoys.

[9]Ibid., 511–512. Bock adds, “The letter carries a regional address, as it is sent to Antioch, Syria (Acts 15:41; 18:18; 20:3; 21:3), and Cilicia. But this is not only a local problem and decision. The problem arose in Antioch, but communities in Syria and Cilicia are informed, showing the desire to prevent the problems from appearing elsewhere. Acts 16:4 suggests that other communities are informed as well” (ibid.).

[10]Elsewhere, John warns churches about false teachers who engage in such itinerant ministry (2 John 8–11).

[11]W. B. Selbie, Congregationalism (London: Methuen, 1927), 1–2.

[12]Peter Toon, “Episcopalianism,” in Who Runs the Church: Four Views on Church Government, ed. Steven B. Cowan (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 21–41. Toon adds as a benefit of episcopalianism an intentional cumbersomeness “meant to frustrate the immediate demands of fallen men for quick action to be imposed on all. These quick impositions are almost always wrong, given human nature” (ibid., 33).

[13]L. Roy Taylor, “Presbyterianism,” in Who Runs the Church? 73–98.

[14]“London Confession, 1644,” in William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, rev. ed. (Valley Forge, PA: Judson, 1969), 168–169. I have rendered the text in Lumpkin clearer for today’s readers.

[15]“Second London Confession,” in ibid., 289–290. I have rendered the text in Lumpkin clearer for today’s readers. Cf. “Orthodox Creed,” in ibid., 327. Because this creed was unique in affirming an association of churches above the local church level, and because it was resisted by some General Baptists and never established itself beyond a regional audience, the Orthodox Creed cannot be considered to be typical of Baptist ecclesiology on this point.

[16]Baptist Faith and Message, section 14. The section even affirms that “Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations” under certain circumstances. An outstanding example of cooperation between Southern Baptist churches is the Cooperative Program (CP). Individual church members give to their local church, which decides what percentage of undesignated contributions goes to the CP. The church forwards these funds to its state Baptist convention, which in turns decides what percentage of CP funds will stay in the state for local evangelism and missions endeavors and what percentage will go to the Southern Baptist Convention for support of national and international ministries. The SBC distributes these funds among its International Mission Board, North American Mission Board, six seminaries, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the Historical Library and Archives, and the SBC Operating Budget. Annual CP giving is currently close to $200 million.

[17]Congregational churches may point to the example of strong connections encouraged by Thomas Hooker in his presentation of the principles of congregationalism, drawn up in 1645. Addressing relationships between churches, he wrote: “Consociation of churches should be used, as occasion requires. Such consociations and synods are allowed to counsel and admonish other churches, as the case may require. And if they [sc. the churches being admonished] grow obstinate in error or sinful miscarriages, they [sc. the consociations/synods] should renounce the right hand of fellowship with them. But they [sc. the consociations/synods] have no power to excommunicate. Nor do their constitutions bind formally and judicially” (Thomas Hooker, “The Principles of 1645,” cited in The Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism, ed. Williston Walker [New York: Pilgrim, 1991], 146–147).

[18]Forsyth underscored this point over half a century ago. Writing about free churches, he warned that “they have been much too atomist. The independence of each congregation or each member has been overdone” (P. T. Forsyth, Lectures on the Church and the Sacraments [London: Longmans, Green, 1917], 7–8).

[19]When a clear and well-structured system of authority exists among the church leadership, the leaders operating at the highest levels must exercise their rightful authority properly, and those leaders operating at lower levels must exercise their rightful authority properly while submitting properly to the leaders over them. Though these lower-tiered leaders have specific authority in their spheres of responsibility, they may not overstep their domain so as to work without the oversight and approval of the leaders above them. Such improper use of authority is both disobedience and divisiveness, both of which are sin.

[20]My thanks to Greg Gilbert and Third Avenue Baptist Church, Louisville, KY.

[21]Working from the biblical evidence of the church’s involvement in church disciplinary matters, Garrett reasons that if “members are both received into and excluded from a . . . church by decision of the congregation, one may say that church membership is an extension of Congregational governance” (James Leo Garrett Jr., “The Congregation-Led Church: Congregational Polity,” in Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity, ed. Chad Owen Brand and R. Stanton Norman [Nashville: B&H, 2006], 189).

[22]This responsibility would not exclude a search team doing a significant amount of work so as to determine good candidates to bring before the team of elders and ultimately the church membership for their approbation. It certainly would not exclude significant congregational input into possible candidates and even the desired profile of people who will be considered for the office. Personally, I am suspicious of nominating committees in the traditional sense, as the structure wields almost unchecked authority in the determination of candidates and is often plagued by a tendency toward nepotism, cronyism, and political favoritism.

[23]The grammatical construction with one definite article governing three participles indicates Paul refers to one specific group of leaders in the church, not three groups.

[24]Anthony C. Thiselton, The Hermeneutics of Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 501. Thiselton references Forsyth, Lectures on the Church and the Sacraments, 9–25. As Forsyth expressed his concern, “But the more the democracy acquires control, the more urgent is the question of what is to control it” (Forsyth, Lectures on the Church and the Sacraments, 11). Though Forsyth was addressing the secular democracies of his day, his thoughts have application to congregationalism and its emphasis on democratic processes.

[25]Ibid., 12–13.

[26]For a practical approach to church membership, see Chuck Lawless, Membership Matters: Insights from Effective Churches on New Member Classes and Assimilation (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005).

[27]Mark Driscoll expresses a similar reluctance in a much more vivid way (Mark Driscoll, Confessions of a Reformission Rev: Hard Lessons from an Emerging Missional Church [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006], 103–104).

[28]Several recent scholarly studies of multisite churches are excellent resources on the topic, but see especially Brian Frye, “The Multi-site Church Phenomenon in North America, 1950–2010” (PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2010).

[29]E.g., St. Luke’s United Methodist Church, Indianapolis, IN; Gulf Breeze United Methodist Church, Pensacola, FL; Upper Arlington Lutheran Church, Columbus, OH.

[30]E.g., Redeemer Presbyterian Church, Manhattan, NY; Harbor Presbyterian Church, San Diego.

[31]E.g., Highview Baptist Church, Louisville; Northland: A Church Distributed, Longwood, FL.

[32]Geoff Surratt, Greg Ligon, and Warren Bird, The Multi-site Church Revolution: Being One Church . . . in Many Locations (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 18; cf. Bill Easum and Dave Travis, Beyond the Box: Innovative Churches that Work (Loveland, CO: Group, 2003), 85.

[33]Surratt, Ligon, and Bird, Multi-site Church Revolution, 18.

[34]For further discussion, see Frye, “Multi-site Church Phenomenon in North America, 1950–2010,” 118–179.

[35]For example, the North Melrose campus, North Coast Church, Vista, CA, has six sites: North Coast Live, the “original venue with a full worship band and live teaching in the main auditorium”; Video Café, with “contemporary gospel music, Starbucks coffee, pastries, and message via big screen video”; The Edge, “an edgier atmosphere with big subwoofers and the same message via big screen video”; Country Gospel, “featuring gospel/bluegrass worship, Starbucks and cookies, with the message via big screen video”; Traditions, “a mix of classic hymns, old favorites, and contemporary worship; Starbucks and pastries with the message via big screen video”; Canvas, the “newest venue for artists featuring a full coffee bar and a unique experience” that blends “a portion of the sermon, worship and art” throughout the service. Accessible at www.northcoastchurch.com/north_coast_melrose. In 2007, 38 percent of multisite churches used this approach (Stephen Shields, “2007 Survey of 1,000 Multi-site Churches: Latest Insights on a Growing Movement” [Leadership Network], 9).

[36]For example, Bethlehem Baptist Church meets in three locations in Minneapolis/St. Paul: north (Mounds View), downtown (Minneapolis), and south (Burnsville). Accessible at www.hopeingod.org. In 2007, 62 percent of multisite churches used this approach (Shields, “2007 Survey of 1,000 Multi-site Churches,” 9).

[37]An example of this approach is Community Christian Church throughout the Chicago area. Accessible at www.communitychristian.org. In 2007, 24 percent of multisite churches used this approach (Shields, “2007 Survey of 1,000 Multi-site Churches,” 9). Shield’s percentages for these three approaches add up to more than 100 percent because they reflect responses to a multiple-choice survey and not empirical data. Two other multisite models are often presented: the partnership model and the low-risk model. Because these approaches generally involve the use of locations or facilities in which the experience of the originating church is replicated much like one of the three main approaches, I will not treat them separately.

[38]Warren Bird, “Big News: Multisite Churches Now Number More than 5,000” (August 22, 2012). Accessible at http://leadnet.org/blog/big-news-multisite-churches-now-number-more-than-5000.

[39]Elmer Towns, Ed Stetzer, and Warren Bird, Eleven Innovations in the Local Church: How Today’s Leaders Can Learn, Discern, and Move into the Future (Ventura, CA: Regal, 2007), 92–94.

[40]Thomas White and John M. Yeats, Franchising McChurch: Feeding Our Obsession with Easy Christianity (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2009); Jeffrey T. Riddle, “A Theological Critique of Multi-site Ministry,” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Washington, DC, November 2006); Thomas White, “The Dangers of the Multi-site Church Movement,” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, San Diego, CA, November, 2007). I concur with most of these critiques; however, I feel that they overlook some biblical and theological considerations that can justify at least some multisite churches.

[41]For further discussion, see Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears, Vintage Church: Timeless Truths and Timely Methods (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008), 243–266; Mark Dever and Paul Alexander, The Deliberate Church: Building Your Ministry on the Gospel (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005), 87; Gregg R. Allison, “Theological Defense of Multi-site,” 9Marks eJournal 6 (May/June 2009): 8–20; J. D. Greear, “A Pastor Defends His Multi-site Church” 9Marks eJournal 6 (2009): 21–26. For an opposing view, see Grant Gaines, “Exegetical Critique of Multi-site: Disassembling the Church?” 9Marks eJournal 6 (May/June 2009): 45–59; Greg Gilbert, “What Is This Thing, Anyway? A Multi-site Taxonomy,” 9Marks eJournal 6 (2009): 28–30; Jonathan Leeman, “Theological Critique of Multi-site: Leadership Is the Church,” 9Marks eJournal 6 (2009): 50–62; these articles are accessible at: http://www.9marks.org/ejournal/multi-site-churches.

[42]My translation. The following discussion follows with modification the fine article by Bruce Button and Fika J. Van Rensburg, “The ‘House Churches’ in Corinth,” Neotestamentica: Journal of the New Testament Society of South Africa 37/1 (2003): 1–28.

[43]According to BAG (1st ed.), κατά (kata) with the accusative has a distributive notion; it lists κατ’ οἰκίαν (οἶκον) (kat’oikian [oikon]) “in the various houses” as found in Acts 2:46 and 5:42 with a similar idea in Acts 8:3. In BDAG (3rd ed.), κατά has the connotation “of places viewed serially, distributive use w[ith] acc[usative], x by x . . . or from x to x: κατ’ οἰκον (PLond III, 904, 20 p. 125 [104 AD] ἡ κατ’ οἰκίαν ἀπογραφή)” and again includes Acts 2:46 and 5:42 (adding Acts 20:20 as further example), commenting “both in ref[erence] to various house assemblies or congregations.” Cf. the Liddell-Scott Jones lexicon, which explains κατά with the accusative as “distributively, of a whole divided into parts” (Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones, eds., A Greek-English Lexicon, with a Revised Supplement, 9th ed. [New York: Oxford University Press, 1996], 883). At the same time, BAG and BDAG (both 1st and 3rd eds.) counts Romans 16:5 and 1 Corinthians 16:19 (without mentioning Col. 4:14 and Philem. 2) not as examples of the distributive sense of κατά but as illustrative “of isolation or separateness.” Interestingly, all the other examples supplied for this sense of κατά are in collocation with personal pronouns: καθ’ ἑαυτοὺς (kath’ heautous), καθ’ ἑαυτόν (kath’ heauton), καθ’ ἑαυτήν (kath’ heautēn). It appears that at the time of the New Testament, the sense of κατά with nouns in the accusative was similar to κατ’ ἰδίαν (kat’idian) or its cognates (thus, its/theirs/his/hers). What this point suggests with respect to the discussion at hand is that in these salutations, Paul specifically sends his greetings to the church (e.g., of Corinth) meeting in a particular member’s (or members’) home (e.g., Priscilla and Aquila). This interpretation should not be misunderstood to mean that the church (e.g., of Corinth) met exclusively in that member’s/members’ house and nowhere else. Rather, the interpretation is that from among the various house gatherings (e.g., of the church in the city of Corinth), the apostle targets his greetings to one specific gathering in a particular member’s/members’ house.

[44]My intent here is to illustrate what might have been the situation in Corinth by citing New Testament passages that indicate Christians who were associated with Corinth and who may have hosted the gatherings distributed in their homes. Titius’s home was indeed the site from which Paul worked as he established the church in Corinth (Acts 18:7). Crispus and his household may have hosted part of the church in their home (Acts 18:8). Stephanus and his household were the first Corinthian converts (1 Cor. 16:15), so I extrapolate that their home was a location for the church to meet. Gaius’s home was the site for the whole church to gather (Rom. 16:23).

[45]Button and Van Rensburg, “The ‘House Churches’ in Corinth,” 14.

[46]As noted in footnote 43, Acts 2:46 is a clear example of κατά (kata) with the accusative having a distributive sense. Accordingly, whatever one may decide about the four Pauline passages and their support—or lack thereof—for one church gathering in various houses, Luke’s description of the church in Jerusalem as meeting in the temple and “from house to house” affirms the presence of this structure in the earliest church.

[47]This issue cannot be argued or decided on the basis of the word ἐκκλησία alone. Some opponents of multisite churches base their criticism on the alleged fact that the word means “assembly.” Their argument is: (1) according to Scripture, ἐκκλησία means an assembly of all the church’s members; (2) a multisite church is not—and is not designed to be—an assembly of all its members; (3) therefore, a multisite church does not have biblical warrant and thus it is not properly a church. This argument commits three errors. The first is a methodological error, that is, defining a concept (church) by defining a word (ἐκκλησία). We do not define a concept by defining a word. For example, if someone asks us about salvation, we would not respond by saying “the meaning of the word sōteria and its cognates in the New Testament is deliverance from danger.” Similarly, if someone asks us about justification, we would not respond by saying “the meaning of the word dikaiosunē and its cognates is to acquit of wrongdoing.” Both salvation and justification are far richer in meaning than the mere definitions of the New Testament words translated for them. So it goes for church; its meaning is much more than the definition of the word ἐκκλησία. This approach commits a methodological error. The second problem with this approach is a lexical error. While it is true that a meaning of the word ἐκκλησία is “assembly,” it is only one of the meanings of that word. An assembly is certainly in view when Paul addresses celebrating the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:17–34) and regulates the exercise of speaking in tongues and prophecy (14:26–40) when the church is gathered together. But ἐκκλησία cannot mean “assembly” in Acts 8:1, for example, when Luke’s point is that the church was “scattered”—not assembled—because of persecution. In fact, as discussed in chapter 2, the word ἐκκλησία can connote meetings of Christians in houses (Acts 12:12), the church in a city (1 Cor. 1:1–2; 1 Thess. 1:1), all the churches in a region (Acts 9:31), the universal church (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:21–23), the Christian people (1 Cor. 10:32), and even the saints already in heaven (Heb. 12:23). Furthermore, even when the word clearly connotes an assembly, the word itself does not indicate the mode of the assembly, that is, if it is a gathering of a few members, some members, many members, or all the members. Critics of multisite churches merely assume it is an assembly of all the church’s members. Indeed, if this assumption is true, why does Paul specifically refer to “the whole church” (ὅλη ἡ ἐκκλησία [holē hē ekklēsia]) on two occasions (Rom. 16:23; 1 Cor. 14:23)? The word “whole” is redundant if ἐκκλησία always means an assembly of all of the church’s members. Paul’s use of the expression “the whole church” clearly implies the existence of an assembly in which not all of the church’s members are meeting. For further discussion, see W. A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983), 75–76; V. P. Branick, The House Church in the Writings of Paul (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1989), 23–25; Robert Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in their Historical Setting (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980), 37–39; Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, Word Biblical Commentary 44 (Waco, TX: Word, 1982), 257. This point leads to the third problem with this approach, which is a logical error. In the above argument against multisite churches, the first premise contains an unproven assumption, namely, the assembly is—with the implication that it must be designed to be—a gathering of all the church’s members. But no proof of this premise is offered and, as we have seen, the premise is incorrect. The conclusion of the argument dismisses the multisite church because of its failure to be an assembly of all of its members, but the conclusion is drawn from a faulty, assumed premise. Accordingly, any approach that appeals to the meaning of the word ἐκκλησία as an argument against multisite churches is misguided because it commits three errors. Moreover, the claim with accompanying criticism that some/many multisite churches never have gatherings designed for all their members to come together, is not an argument against multisite churches per se.

[48]This idea comes from Darrin Patrick of The Journey, a multisite church in St. Louis, Missouri.

[49]“Treasuring Christ Together: A Vision for Church Planting and Campus Multiplication, Bethlehem Baptist Church 2004–2014” (April 21, 2004). Accessible at www.hopeingod.org. Note should be made of the dual-pronged strategy of multiplication of sites and church planting, which is explained in the following: “We are strongly committed to planting new churches. However, we have come to believe that church planting alone will not adequately solve the lack of space and insufficient seating problems of the downtown site. . . . So while we are committed to planting churches we believe we also must develop strategies to manage our growth in ways that keep us true to our God-given mission” (“Multi-site Vision: Assessment and Recommendations,” Bethlehem Baptist Church [April 15, 2003]. Accessible at www.hopeingod.org).

[50]See further: Gregg Allison, interviewed in “Should Multi-site Campuses Be Church Plants Instead?” Christianity Today 53/10 (September 2009). In some cases, extra sites can function much like church plants (Driscoll and Breshears, Vintage Church, 210, 212). In 2007, 12 percent of multisite churches spun off sites to become independent churches. In actuality, then, this approach may contribute to church planting in the long run (Shields, “2007 Survey of 1,000 Multi-site Churches,”11). Other factors influencing some churches to move toward multisites rather than doing church planting include the following: (1) traditional church planting efforts are generally thirty percent more costly than multisite growing. (2) This approach generates more opportunities for people to serve at the various sites. (3) This approach encourages each campus to be faithfully contextualized in one particular place, then expand specifically in other neighborhoods.

[51]This notion appears among proponents of the multisite approach. For example, according to Richard Kaufmann (Harbor Presbyterian), “I think the whole concept of cooperating as churches is a significant theological point in order to demonstrate the unity of the Christian body.” According to Drew Goodmanson (Kaleo, a multisite church in San Diego), “with multisite strategies you give the city witness to kingdom expression as seen in the unity of multiple sites working together.” (These comments represent summaries of personal interviews with Kaufmann and Goodmanson.)

[52]A common objection raised against multisite churches is their inability to provide pastoral care for all of their members at the various venues. The reply from responsible multisite churches is that the pastoral team at each campus/site is responsible to provide the full range of pastoral care for its campus/site. For example, at Mars Hill, Seattle, “each campus must have its own paid staff appropriate for a church their size (e.g., campus pastor, campus administrator, children’s leader) along with some unpaid elders and deacons (e.g., premarital counseling, small groups, membership). For this to happen each campus must have its own budget that the campus pastor and other elders spend as they see fit, within certain established guidelines for all campuses.” In addition, all the resources at the other campuses/sites are potentially available for a specific campus/site; indeed, the sharing of such resources is part of the strong association envisioned by multisite churches (Driscoll and Breshears, Vintage Church, 212).

[53]See http://sojournchurch.com.

[54]For more information: http://churchplanting.sojournchurch.com.

V

THE ORDINANCES

OF THE CHURCH

CHAPTER

TEN

BAPTISM

Protestant churches acknowledge that Jesus Christ gave to the church two sacraments or ordinances: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The sixteenth-century Reformers’ reduction of the number of sacraments from the Catholic Church’s seven—baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance (or reconciliation), marriage, holy orders, and extreme unction (or last rites)[1]—to two constituted a significant difference leading to the division between Catholicism and Protestantism. The key reason for this development focused on the dominical[2] warrant (or lack thereof) for the sacraments. According to the Reformers, Jesus Christ ordained two (and only two) sacraments: at his last supper with the disciples, he established the commemoration of the Lord’s Supper (Matt. 26:26–29), and in his Great Commission he commanded the practice of baptism (28:18–20). Furthermore, these two sacraments have tangible signs associated with them: the bread and the cup of wine are the elements of the Lord’s Supper, and water is the medium of baptism. As for the other five sacraments of the Catholic Church, they lack dominical justification and/or a tangible sign.[3]

Despite their broad agreement as to the number of sacraments, Protestants disagree as to the proper terminology to employ when speaking of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. For some, these two rites are sacraments of the church. Historically, the word “sacrament” (Latin: sacramentum) was associated with the Greek term μυστήριον (mustērion), or mystery; thus, these sacraments were mysteries of the Christian faith.[4] The idea that the sacraments “manifest and communicate to men, above all in the Eucharist, the mystery of communion with the God who is love, One in three persons,” developed within Catholic theology.[5] Though Protestant theology broke with the number of the rites considered to be sacraments by Catholicism, some Protestant churches retained the terminology and continue to refer to baptism and the Lord’s Supper as sacraments. Other Protestant churches changed the terminology, deciding to call them ordinances, because baptism and the Lord’s Supper were ordained by Christ for the church. Ordinance was also used in place of sacrament to distance the observance of these two rites from the Catholic practice according to which grace is actually conveyed to people through the administration of the sacraments. Out of deference to evangelicals who use both terms, I will refer to these rites as both sacraments and ordinances, though I personally prefer the latter term.

SACRAMENTS AND ORDINANCES: GENERAL DISCUSSION

Augustine’s fifth-century contribution to the theology of the sacraments was determinative for the church for centuries to come.[6] He defined a sacrament generally as an outward and visible sign of an invisible yet genuine grace.[7] Furthermore, the sacraments are effective by their own inherent nature in conferring this grace ex opere operato—literally, by the work performed. This stood in stark contrast with heretics like the Donatists, who insisted that sacraments are valid only when administered in a true church by a duly ordained minister. Augustine argued instead that Christ himself is actually the one who baptizes, serves the Lord’s Supper, and so forth. This meant, for Augustine, that even when heretics baptize, serve the Supper, and perform other such actions, God’s grace is effectively and specifically channeled through those sacraments. For this reason, the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are necessary for salvation: “No one will enter into his kingdom who is not born again of water and the Spirit; nor will anyone attain salvation and eternal life except in his kingdom—because the one who does not believe in the Son, and does not eat his flesh, will not have life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”[8] Thus, a sacrament is an external sign possessing the inherent power to communicate divine grace that is necessary for salvation. As developed in the Catholic Church, baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance (or reconciliation), marriage, holy orders, and extreme unction (or last rites) became its seven sacraments.

The Protestant Reformers broke not only from the number of Catholic sacraments but also from the Church’s sacramental theology. Indeed, Protestant churches defined the sacraments in a very different way.[9] Charles Hodge summarized the Reformed theology of the sacraments. They are “real means of grace, that is, means appointed and employed by Christ for conveying the benefits of his redemption to his people.” Unlike the Catholic perspective of the sacraments, the Reformed view regards them as means, but not the exclusive means, of grace. As the sacraments are administered, “a promise is made to those who rightly receive the sacraments that they shall thereby and therein be made partakers of the blessings of which the sacraments are the divinely appointed signs and seals.” Furthermore, the effectiveness of the sacraments is not inherent to them; they are not “the efficient cause of the gracious effects which they produce.” Neither is the sacramental effectiveness tied to the actions by which they are administered or to their administrator (i.e., the person who baptizes or administers the Lord’s Supper). Rather, “the efficacy of the sacraments is due solely to the blessing of Christ and the working of the Spirit.” Just as God has promised to join the power of the Holy Spirit with his Word for the sanctification of his people, “so he has promised, through the attending operation of his Spirit, to render the sacraments effectual to the same end.” Moreover, in the case of adult participants, the sacraments confer grace only upon those who receive them in faith.[10]

In summary, the Protestant theology of the sacraments emphasizes the necessity of the Holy Spirit, the Word of God, and faith in conjunction with baptism and the Lord’s Supper while denying that these rites confer grace ex opere operato and are necessary for salvation as maintained by Catholic sacramental theology.[11]

Having introduced the general theology of the sacraments, I turn now to a presentation of the doctrine and practice of the initial ordinance of the Christian faith, baptism. In the next chapter I will treat the doctrine and practice of the ongoing ordinance of the Christian faith, the Lord’s Supper.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF BAPTISMAL THEOLOGY AND PRACTICE

Baptism in the Early Church[12]

Even before Jesus began his ministry, baptism was an important element in the Judaism of his time. Anyone who was not born a Jew yet wanted to follow the Jewish religion had to undergo a proselyte baptism.[13] The predecessor of Messiah was called John the Baptist; obviously, baptism was a key part of his preparatory ministry (Mark 1:4–5; Luke 3:16; John 1:31; 3:23). When Jesus began his Messianic ministry, his first act was to be baptized by John (Matt. 3:13–17), and baptism was an important aspect of his ministry (John 4:1–2). After his resurrection, Jesus commissioned his disciples with the task of continuing his work. Again, baptism was to play an essential role in this endeavor (Matt. 28:19).

The early church took seriously this responsibility to baptize. At Pentecost, at the end of his sermon, Peter urged the crowd: “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). The response was impressive: “those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls” (v. 41). This pattern of hearing and responding to the gospel, receiving the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit, accompanied by baptism, was repeated throughout the early years of the church’s expansion in the lives of various groups and individuals (each of the following is from the book of Acts): Samaritans (Acts 8:12); an Ethiopian eunuch (8:36, 38); Saul, a persecutor of the church (9:18; 22:16); Gentiles (10:47–48; 11:16–17); a business woman and her household (16:15); a jailer and his family (16:33); a large number of Corinthians (18:8); a dozen disciples of John the Baptist (19:3–7).

The earliest documents outside of our New Testament picture the continuing importance of baptism for Christianity. According to the Didache, baptism was the initial rite of the Christian religion, to be followed by the Lord’s Supper: “Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptized into the name of the Lord.”[14] The Didache also provided this instruction:

Concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed all these things [with those who are about to be baptized], baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” in running water [e.g., a river of cold water]. But if you have no running water, then baptize into some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm [e.g., a warm lake]. But if you have neither, then pour water upon the head three times “in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.” And before the baptism, let the one baptizing and the one who is to be baptized fast, as well as any others who are able. Also, you must instruct the one who is to be baptized to fast one or two days beforehand.[15]

This second-century church manual specified the administration of the initial rite of the Christian religion.

Putting together the developing understandings of this rite in the early church, baptism served six purposes: the forgiveness of sins; deliverance from death; regeneration, or the new birth; the gift of the Holy Spirit; the renunciation of Satan; and identification with Jesus Christ.[16]

First, “in the baptism of water is received the forgiveness of sins.”[17] So common and important was this link between baptism and forgiveness that it was engraved in the Nicene Creed: “I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” Second, baptism delivers from death: “Is it not wonderful, too, that death should be washed away by washing?”[18] Another penalty from which baptism delivers is the judgment of hell: “In the bath of saving water, the fire of Gehenna is extinguished.”[19] Third, baptism regenerates or brings the new birth: “‘By the bath of regeneration’ they are born as new-born babes.”[20] Two biblical passages—Titus 3:5[21] and John 3:5[22]—were appealed to in support of this effect of baptism. In particular tying baptism with regeneration and linking this to Christ’s statement in John 3:5 became foundational for the necessity of baptism for salvation.[23]

Fourth, baptism provides the gift of the Holy Spirit: “What is called the bath of regeneration takes place with the renewal of the Holy Spirit, for the Spirit as well now comes because he comes from God and is over and above the water.”[24] Fifth, baptism involves a decisive break from Satan: “When entering the water, we make profession of the Christian faith in the words of its rule. We then bear public testimony that we have renounced the devil, his pomp, and his angels.”[25] Sixth, baptism symbolizes one’s identification with Jesus Christ, as those baptized are associated with his death and resurrection.[26]

As the theology of baptism developed in the third and fourth centuries, various practices were added to the rite. One concerned the water. Before it could be used for baptisms, the water had to be consecrated, or set apart, for this activity.[27] A second addition was anointing with oil, or chrismation (from the Greek chrisma, or oil).[28] The laying on of hands was a third addition.[29] Though the New Testament pattern demonstrates that those who professed faith in Jesus Christ were immediately baptized, this practice gave way to a fourth addition—a period of catechesis, or teaching the elements of the Christian faith—prior to baptism. The people who were instructed were referred to as catechumens.[30]

One reason for the delay of baptism was the changing circumstances in which the church of the fourth century found itself. Now as a legal institution, the church experienced a large influx of new people, some of whom joined the church for questionable reasons. One way of ensuring that only serious people intent on being committed Christians could enter the church was to make entrance into it a rather long and difficult process.

Another important reason for postponing baptism until after instruction was the growth of the view that baptism cleanses people from their previous sins, but not from the sins committed after baptism. Given this notion, it would be rash for people to be baptized before they had achieved a certain level of maturity in holiness. Thus, baptism had to follow a significant period of repentance, in which those wishing to be baptized made a definitive break with sin.[31]

It goes without saying that only people who could seriously break with their sins while learning the teachings of the Christian faith could be catechumens, preparing themselves for baptism. This ruled out infants and little children from participating. Yet, the church was moving in a different direction at the same time.

The Turn to Infant Baptism

One of the most important developments in the early church’s view of baptism was its switch from baptizing people who could consciously participate in the rite to baptizing infants. At the end of the second century, Tertullian objected to involving children in baptism. The practice was for sponsors to stand in the place of the infants being baptized. During the ceremony, these sponsors would make promises, both to raise the children in the Christian faith and to ensure that the children would live wholeheartedly for the Lord. Tertullian objected that such promising could not—and should not—take place. Baptism should be administered later on in the children’s life, when they themselves became believers:

According to the circumstances, disposition, and even the age of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable. This is especially true in the case of little children. For why is it necessary that the sponsors should be thrust into danger? They themselves, by reason of death, may fail to keep their promises. They may also be disappointed by the development of an evil nature in those children for whom they stood. Certainly, the Lord does say about children, “Do not forbid them to come to me” (Matt. 19:14). So let them “come” while they are growing up. Let them “come” while they are learning, while they are learning where to come. Let them become Christians when they become able to know Christ. Why does innocent infancy rush to the forgiveness of sins? Let them know how to ask for salvation, that you may seem at least to have given to the one that asks.[32]

At the same time, Origen traced the baptism of infants to the apostles: “The church has received a tradition from the apostles to give baptism even to little children.”[33] Yet he, too, objected to the practice for the reason that innocent people—children—do not need forgiveness. So why did the church practice infant baptism? Origen offered a very important response: “No one is clean of filth, not even if his life on earth has only been for one day. . . . Because the filth of birth is removed by the sacrament of baptism, for that reason infants, too, are baptized.”[34]

This link between baptism and original sin—the belief that Adam has passed on his guilt and corruption to all human beings, so that everyone enters this world guilty before God with a sinful nature—was made specific by Cyprian. He confronted a controversial situation in which the church, modeling its baptismal practice after the rite of circumcision in the Old Testament, regularly baptized infants on the eighth day following their birth.[35] Cyprian objected to this practice, not because it was wrong in and of itself, but because it was too long of a delay, given the dreadful situation into which children are born:

Forgiveness of sins is granted even to the greatest sinners and to those who have sinned much against God, when they subsequently believe in Christ. And nobody is hindered from baptism and grace. If this is so, how much more should we shrink from hindering an infant from baptism? This recently born infant has not sinned except that—being born physically according to Adam—he has contracted the contagion [infection] of the ancient death by his first birth. Thus, he more easily approaches the reception of the forgiveness of sins, because the sins forgiven are not his own but those of another.[36]

At the beginning of the fifth century, Augustine cited this letter of Cyprian—Augustine called it the “book on the baptism of infants”—as the definitive statement on infant baptism.[37] As Augustine expressed it, “What we are discussing concerns the obliteration of original sin in infants.”[38] Because baptism was held to bring the forgiveness of sins, and because infants are born with the guilt and corruption due to Adam’s sin—original sin—the baptism of infants became the common practice of the church. Though they had not yet personally sinned, infants would still be condemned because of their association with the sin of Adam. Thus, they were to be baptized soon after they were born. By the beginning of the fifth century infant baptism was the official practice of the church.[39]

While continuing to affirm much of the preceding theology and practice of baptism, Augustine introduced an important element into the Church’s theology of the sacraments in general and its theology of baptism in particular: the principle of ex opere operato—literally, by the work performed. The sacraments—in this case baptism—are effective by the simple fact that they are administered. This means that their validity is not dependent on the minister who performs the ceremony. Indeed, for Augustine the baptism administered by the Catholic Church is not a baptism that belongs to the Church. In a similar way, the baptism performed by a heretical group is not a baptism that belongs to the heretics. Rather, “baptism belongs to Christ, regardless of who may give it.”[40] Accordingly, “all people possess baptism who have received it in any place from any sort of person, as long as it was consecrated with the words of the gospel and received by them without deceit and with some degree of faith.”[41] In affirming this, Augustine underscored the objectivity of the sacrament—baptism accomplishes forgiveness, regeneration, the promise of eternal life, and the giving of the Holy Spirit—by the simple act of being performed. The character and conduct of the one administering baptism does not and cannot affect it. Neither can the character and conduct of the recipient impede the divine grace.[42] Ultimately, Augustine’s view of the effectiveness of the sacraments—ex opere operato—won the day. Thus, he gave the definitive shape to the Catholic Church’s theology of baptism.

Reformation Changes to Baptism

The three magisterial Reformers—Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, and John Calvin—continued the centuries-old practice of infant baptism.[43] Their approaches to this sacrament differed from each other, and they all distanced themselves in certain ways from the Catholic observance of the rite. At the same time, however, another reforming movement—the Anabaptists—broke from the practice of baptizing infants. It believed that only people who can consciously understand the gospel, repent of their sins, and believe in Jesus Christ for salvation should be baptized. Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin thoroughly denounced this view of baptism. Opposition to the Anabaptists resulted in many thousands of them being executed for their heretical view. Each of these views of baptism will be briefly developed.

Martin Luther

Though he challenged many of the views of the Catholic Church, Martin Luther did not oppose the Church’s practice of infant baptism. However, he presented it in a significantly different way by intimately linking baptism with the Word of God and faith: “It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe, as the Word and promise of God declare.”[44] With regard to the element of faith, Luther explained, “Faith clings to the water and believes that it is baptism, in which there is pure salvation and life. This is not salvation through the water . . . but through the fact that it is embodied in the Word and institution of God, and the name of God inheres in it.”[45]

But how is faith possible in an infant? Luther’s answer to this question evolved over time and emphasized at various junctures the faith of the sponsors of the children, the faith of the infants themselves, infant baptism as the practice of the apostles and the historical position of the Christian church, the good fruit of infant baptism throughout the centuries,[46] and the validity of baptism apart from faith.[47] Ultimately, Luther grounded his position on Scripture. For him, the Bible does not explicitly command infant baptism. Thus, there would not be an adequate biblical basis for starting the practice were infant baptism not practiced already. But Scripture had enough to say about it so that the church could not discontinue infant baptism. In particular, Luther appealed to Christ’s command to let children come to him (Matt. 19:13–15); to deny baptism to children, therefore, would be disobedience to this order. Also, Christ commands the church to baptize “all nations” (28:19–20), and this all-encompassing group obviously includes infants. This is confirmed by the baptism of entire family units in the book of Acts: those household baptisms (Acts 16:14–15; 29–34) undoubtedly included infants being baptized. Luther concluded, “We bring the child to be baptized with the conviction and the hope that he will believe, and we pray that God will give him faith. But we do not baptize on the strength of this belief, but only on the fact that God has commanded it.”[48] Thus, Luther continued the centuries-old practice of infant baptism.

Huldrych Zwingli

Huldrych Zwingli also continued this practice, though he justified it in a different way. Actually, early in his career Zwingli entertained the idea that only adults should be baptized. This idea flowed from his view of the sacraments: they are external signs by which people respond to what God has done. Accordingly, “baptism is a covenant sign that indicates that all those who receive it are willing to amend their lives and to follow Christ. In short, it is an initiation to new life. Baptism is therefore an initiatory sign.”[49] Furthermore, baptism is a pledge on the part of those baptized to be faithful members of the church. Once God has worked in people’s lives and they have repented of their sins, they proclaim their commitment to Christ and his church.[50]

Zwingli eventually returned, however, to the practice of baptizing infants, admitting his former error.[51] He changed his mind as he confronted a group of radical Reformers—the Anabaptists. They denied infant baptism and insisted instead that baptism was only for people who could consciously repent and believe in Christ. This position clearly excluded infants. Zwingli fought against their view and developed several defenses for the traditional practice.

First, he found an analogy between the old covenant practice of circumcision and the new covenant practice of infant baptism.[52] Just as Israel had two signs or seals of their covenant with God—circumcision and the Passover—so the church has two signs or seals of its new covenant with God—baptism and the Lord’s Supper.[53] Because circumcision was applied on the eighth day after an infant’s birth, so baptism should be administered to infants. Unlike circumcision, it should be applied to infant girls as well as boys. Second, Zwingli pointed to the baptism of John the Baptist, not the command of Jesus Christ to baptize, as the foundation for Christian baptism; from John’s baptism he found implications for infant baptism.[54] The third reason for infant baptism is its support from Scripture. Zwingli listed Jesus’ welcoming of little children (Luke 18:15–17) and household baptisms (Acts 16:13–15, 25–34) as the biblical basis for the practice.[55] Finally, Zwingli argued against changing from infant baptism to baptizing those who could consciously repent and believe in Christ because to do so would divide the church. He was highly critical of the attitude of the Anabaptists;[56] to follow their belief on baptism would destroy the unity of the church. Thus, he urged them to not withdraw from the current practice of infant baptism,[57] which should be retained as the proper way to administer this rite.

The Anabaptists

Despite the continuation of infant baptism by Luther and Zwingli, some of those who broke from the Catholic Church at the same time abandoned that practice in favor of the baptism of believers. In Zurich, Felix Manz, Conrad Grebel, and George Blaurock became convinced that only people who could consciously repent of their sins and believe in Jesus Christ for salvation should be baptized; therefore, they did not bring their infant children to the church to be baptized. The Council of Zurich, following Zwingli’s theology of infant baptism, denounced this novelty and ordered these rebellious citizens to baptize their children.[58] The response of those targeted by this order was swift and decisive. Three days later, on January 21, 1521, during a meeting in the home of Felix Manz, George Blaurock asked Conrad Grebel to baptize him. Once baptized, Blaurock in turn baptized others. This was the beginning of the Anabaptist movement. Literally, the word “Anabaptist” means to rebaptize; however, because the Anabaptists denied the validity of their infant baptism, they did not see themselves practicing rebaptism, but baptism instead. The city leaders of Zurich would not tolerate such blatant disobedience, so they decreed that the Anabaptists should be executed for heresy.[59]

The baptismal position of the Anabaptists was built on several arguments, some of which were presented to disqualify the practice of baptizing children. First, no explicit biblical warrant could be found for infant baptism. Whereas Zwingli and others interpreted the lack of such specific teaching as meaning that Scripture does not prohibit the practice, the Anabaptists understood the silence to mean that Scripture forbids baptizing infants.[60] Without this explicit Scriptural command, the church could not engage in baptizing children. Second, the Anabaptists noted that none of the New Testament accounts of baptism make any mention of infants participating in the ceremony. Whereas Zwingli and others argued that infant baptisms could be assumed in these accounts, the Anabaptists denied that such a case could legitimately be made.[61] Third, Hubmaier turned Zwingli’s view of baptism as an initiatory sign against him. What could it possibly signify in the case of baptized children? Not the reception of the Holy Spirit, nor the beginning of faith, nor certainly the beginning of a new life. So if the baptism of infants did not symbolize any initial event, the practice should be suspended.[62]

As a positive case for the baptism of believers, the Anabaptists pointed to all the New Testament passages about baptism and underscored that, in every case, faith preceded water baptism. Balthasar Hubmaier, a leading Anabaptist, detailed what this faith entailed: “you must know this much of the Word of God before you receive baptism: you must confess yourself a miserable sinner and consider yourself guilty; you must believe in the forgiveness of your sins through Jesus Christ and begin a new life . . . before baptism.”[63] Capitalizing on Zwingli’s lament over the abuse of “outer baptism” (the ceremony involving water),[64] Hubmaier averred, “No physical element or external thing in this world can cleanse the soul. Rather, faith cleanses the hearts of people. Thus, it follows that baptism cannot wash away sin.”[65] For Hubmaier and the Anabaptists, that meant that people must experience the work of God and have faith before they can properly be baptized with water: “Water baptism is an outward and public testimony of the inner baptism of the Spirit.”[66] This established the practice of baptizing believers. Adding to this—and even more importantly for the Anabaptists—was the simple fact that Christ himself commanded the baptism of believers.[67]

This Anabaptist belief was officially stated in the Schleitheim Confession of 1527, the earliest Anabaptist confession of faith. After critiquing the practice of infant baptism as “the highest and chief abomination of the pope” and the Protestant paedobaptists, it affirmed the following: “Baptism shall be given to all those who have learned repentance and amendment of life, and who believe truly that their sins are taken away by Christ, and to all those who walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and wish to be buried with Him in death, so that they may be resurrected with Him, and to all those who with this significance request it [baptism] of us and demand it for themselves.”[68] Thus, this baptismal practice came into existence at the time of the Reformation through the Anabaptists.

John Calvin

Like Zwingli, Calvin justified infant baptism on the analogy between the old covenant sign of circumcision and the new covenant sign of baptism. He noted that the benefits of both signs are the forgiveness of sins and the putting to death of the sinful nature. This similarity led him to see the analogy between the two and to conclude, “Apart from the difference in the visible ceremony, whatever belongs to circumcision applies likewise to baptism. By this it appears incontrovertible that baptism has taken the place of circumcision to fulfill the same office among us.”[69] In this analogy, Calvin found the key reason for the baptism of children of Christians: to mark them out as holy, different from the children of unbelievers.[70] Calvin further supported this practice by appeal to Christ’s receiving the little children and proclaiming that the kingdom of heaven belonged to them (Matt. 19:13–15).[71]

Developing the idea further, Calvin underscored that benefits accrue “both to the believers who present their children to be baptized and to the infants themselves who are baptized with the sacred water.”[72] For the parents, the benefit is seeing God’s covenant of mercy being extended to their children.[73] As for the benefit for the infants: “Being engrafted into the body of the church, they are somewhat more commended to the other members. Then, when they have grown up, they are greatly spurred to an earnest zeal for worshipping God by whom they were received as children through a solemn symbol of adoption before they were old enough to recognize him as Father.”[74]

Calvin did not appeal to the need to remove original sin as a reason for infant baptism. Though he emphasized the dreadful plight of all people descended from Adam, Calvin’s solution was not to baptize children to remove their condemnation. Rather, he maintained that, “through baptism, believers are assured that this condemnation has been removed and withdrawn from them. . . . The Lord promises us by this sign that full and complete forgiveness has been made, both of the guilt that should have been imputed to us, and of the punishment that we ought to have undergone because of the guilt.”[75] Accordingly, Calvin continued to affirm infant baptism.

Post-Reformation Developments

Of course, the Catholic Church reacted to these Protestant views of baptism, seeing them all as being in error in one way or another. The Council of Trent condemned all views that denied that the Church had a correct position on baptism.[76] Furthermore, the Council denounced the Anabaptist practice of withholding baptism from children.[77]

Following the trajectory of the Anabaptists, the early Baptists disavowed the legitimacy of any type of infant baptism, whether it was administered in the Catholic Church or in paedobaptist Protestant churches.[78] The London Confession of Faith further detailed this baptism for believers:

Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, given by Christ, to be dispensed upon people professing faith, or who are made disciples. These, upon profession of faith, ought to be baptized (and after to partake of the Lord’s Supper). The way and manner of dispensing this ordinance is dipping or plunging the body under water. Being a sign, it must answer the things signified; which is, that interest the saints have in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. And, as certainly as the body is buried under water, and risen again, so certainly shall the bodies of the saints be raised by the power of Christ in the day of the resurrection, to reign with Christ.[79]

The Second London Confession of Faith underscored that “immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the proper administration of this ordinance.”[80] Thus, the Baptist movement developed and offered a popular alternative to the centuries-old tradition of infant baptism.

In summary, from the early part of the sixteenth century and continuing for another hundred years, Protestant theologies and practices of baptism challenged the infant baptism view of the Catholic Church and put an end to its monopoly on the rite. The magisterial Reformers—Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, and John Calvin—developed different warrants for continuing the centuries-old practice of infant baptism, while the Anabaptists and Baptists denounced this exercise, insisting instead on believer’s baptism. With few exceptions—for example, the Stone/Campbellite movement (with its insistence on believer’s baptism as necessary for salvation), the Quakers (with their denial of any type of material baptism)—these four major views—Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist—remain the dominant approaches to baptism today.

THE CURRENT THEOLOGICAL DIVIDE BETWEEN PAEDOBAPTISM AND BELIEVER’S BAPTISM: WHO IS TO BE BAPTIZED?

Within evangelicalism, a major difference between paedobaptism and believer’s baptism continues to divide it into two distinct camps. This debate seems to exist particularly between the Reformed theology of infant baptism and the baptistic theology of believer’s baptism. Both positions agree that any theology of baptismal regeneration—the doctrine that baptism saves the one who is baptized—is incorrect, so I will not address that position. Rather, in this section, I will set forth the major tenets of both Reformed paedobaptism and the baptistic theology of believer’s baptism (also called credobaptism), rehearse the major objections each position raises against the other, and advocate for my position of believer’s baptism. This is one of the most important discussions with respect to this doctrine, because it addresses the issue of who is to be baptized.

Key Tenets of Infant Baptism (or Paedobaptism)

Because I do not hold to paedobaptism, and wish to be fair to the view, I will rely on Louis Berkhof’s presentation of infant baptism as a widely acknowledged, well-articulated representation of that position.[81] According to Berkhof, though “there is no explicit command in the Bible to baptize children,” nor is there “a single instance in which we are plainly told that children were baptized,” this fact “does not necessarily make infant baptism un-Biblical.”[82] He offers, positively, four points as constituting “the Scriptural grounds for infant baptism” and, defensively, two points of explanation for anticipated objections to his position.

Positively, his Scriptural basis relies on the construction of a covenantal argument for paedobaptism, which consists of the following four points: first, the Abrahamic covenant “was primarily a spiritual covenant, though it also had a national aspect” in that it was for the people of Israel.[83] The sign and seal of this spiritual covenant was circumcision. Evidence for its spiritual significance is “the fact that the promise of the covenant is even called ‘the gospel,’ Gal. 3:8.”[84] Second, the Abrahamic covenant continues in force today and is “essentially identical with the ‘new covenant’.”[85] Evidence for this identification includes the fact that both covenants have the same mediator, they both demand faith, and they provide the same saving benefits of justification, regeneration, spiritual gifts, and eternal life.[86] Strong continuity exists between the Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant as parts of the one covenant of grace.[87]

Third, according to the purpose of God, “infants shared in the benefits of the covenant, and therefore received circumcision as a sign and seal.”[88] Appealing to the organic nature of covenant, Berkhof maintains that the people of God is “constituted by families”;[89] he sees this emphasis as being particularly strong in the Old Testament and carried over in the New Testament. Because “infants were considered . . . as an integral part of Israel as the people of God,”[90] Berkhof reasons that exclusion of children as an integral part of the church, or a reduction of their privileges under the new covenant, would be quite unexpected. He cites in support Jesus’ reception of children (Matt. 19:14), Peter’s announcement that the promise of salvation through the gospel was not only for his immediate hearers but for their children as well (Acts 2:39), and Paul’s statement that the children of believers are “holy” (1 Cor. 7:14). Thus, infants are to enjoy incorporation into the new covenant community, the church.

Fourth, as a substitute for circumcision, baptism is “the initiatory sign and seal of the new covenant of grace.”[91] Berkhof maintains that baptism “corresponds with circumcision in spiritual meaning” because “as circumcision referred to the cutting away of sin and to a change of heart . . . baptism refers to the washing away of sin . . . and to spiritual renewal.”[92] He calls specific attention to Colossians 2:11–12 as the passage that “clearly links up circumcision with baptism, and teaches that the Christ-circumcision, that is, circumcision of the heart, signified by circumcision in the flesh, was accomplished by baptism, by that which baptism signifies.”[93] He further reasons that if the Old Testament called for children to receive “the sign and seal of the covenant . . . , the presumption is that they surely have a right to receive it in the new,” particularly because the Old Testament pointed to a new covenant that would be “much fuller and richer.”[94] Indeed, Berkhof insists, “Their exclusion from it would require a clear and unequivocal statement to that effect, but quite the contrary is found.”[95] Again, he cites Matthew 19:14, Acts 2:39, and 1 Corinthians 7:14. Thus, infants are to be baptized as signifying their incorporation into the new covenant community, the church.

Defensively, Berkhof makes two points in anticipation of possible objections. First, he offers several explanations for the paucity of direct New Testament evidence for infant baptism, focusing on the apostolic age as a “missionary period” in which “the emphasis would naturally fall on the baptism of adults” and during which conditions favorable to infant baptism would be lacking; for example, it would take time for the earliest Christians to understand that one of their covenant duties was the baptism of their children, and the early church often encountered the situation in which only one parent was converted and the other opposed the baptism of their children.[96] Still, appealing to the three key passages noted above, Berkhof insists that “the language of the New Testament is perfectly consistent with a continuation of the organic administration of the covenant, which required the circumcision of children” and hence leads to the baptism of infants.[97] He sees this pattern confirmed by the household baptisms in the New Testament (Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Cor. 1:16),[98] though he admits, “It is entirely possible, of course, but not very probable, that none of these households contained children. And if there were infants, it is morally certain that they were baptized along with the parents.”[99] Making an argument from silence, Berkhof concludes, “The New Testament certainly contains no evidence that persons born and reared in Christian families may not be baptized until they have come to years of discretion and have professed their faith in Christ. There is not the slightest allusion to any such practice.”[100]

Second, Berkhof treats the historical evidence for infant baptism, citing many of the same sources treated earlier in this chapter. He maintains that the practice was common by the latter part of the second century, though he seems to minimize Tertullian’s strong objections to infant baptism at that juncture. Berkhof notes that the Council of Carthage took the practice for granted in the middle of the third century, concluding that at least by that time in the church’s history, infant baptism was its practice.[101]

Summarizing the Reformed theology of infant baptism, Berkhof affirms that

infants of believing parents are baptized on the ground that they are children of the covenant, and are as such heirs of the all-comprehensive covenant-promises of God, which include also the promise of the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit unto regeneration and sanctification. In the covenant God makes over to them a certain grant or donation in a formal and objective way, requires of them that they will in due time accept this by faith, and promises to make it a living reality in their lives by the operation of the Holy Spirit.[102]

He explains what paedobaptism means for the church’s view of baptized infants:

The Church must regard them as prospective heirs of salvation, must regard them as under obligation to walk in the way of the covenant, has the right to expect that, under a faithful administration, they, speaking generally, will live in the covenant, and is in duty bound to regard them as covenant breakers, if they do not meet its requirements. It is only in this way that it does full justice to the promises of God, which must in all their fullness be appropriated in faith by those who come to maturity. Thus the covenant, including the covenant promises, constitutes the objective and legal ground for the baptism of infants. Baptism is a sign and seal of all that is comprehended in the promises.[103]

This presentation by Berkhof is representative of the case for infant baptism.

Key Tenets of Believer’s Baptism (or Credobaptism)

According to the position of believer’s baptism, its justification consists in three biblical elements. The first is the biblical imperative, illustration, and discussion of baptism. The second is the necessity of hearing the gospel and responding to it with repentance and faith followed by baptism. The third element is the practice of baptism in the early church.[104]

First, in Matthew 28:19–20, Jesus gives the Great Commission imperative, according to which baptism is to be administered to disciples, his followers, who are also to be taught to obey his commands. Proponents of believer’s baptism insist the most natural reading of this text leads to the conclusion that these recipients of baptism are disciples who are capable of hearing the Word of Christ, understanding it, and responding obediently to it—things of which infants are incapable. Thus, the church is given the imperative to baptize disciples of Jesus Christ.

Moreover, the biblical illustrations of baptism in the book of Acts portray those who hear the gospel, repent of their sins, and believe in Jesus Christ as the recipients of baptism. Taking these examples one by one, Peter commands his listeners, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). This original audience was composed of a multitude of pilgrims—both Jews and proselytes—to whom the gospel was preached (vv. 22–36) and who, after hearing it, “were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’” (v. 37). Indeed, Luke explains that “those who received his word were baptized” (v. 41). Clearly, baptism was administered to those who had heard the gospel, repented of their sins (of which they were forgiven), received the Holy Spirit, and believed in the name of Jesus Christ (they are referred to as “all who believed” in v. 44).

Another narrative treats the baptism of the Samaritans to whom Philip preached: “when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women” (Acts 8:5–6, 12). Clearly, those baptized heard and believed the gospel. The following narrative (vv. 26–40) rehearses Philip’s encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch. Beginning with the prophet Isaiah—whose prophecy the eunuch was reading and seeking to understand at the time of the encounter (vv. 30–34)—Philip “told him the good news about Jesus” (v. 35). When the two “came to some water” and the eunuch wondered, “What prevents me from being baptized?” (v. 36)—and the intended reply is “nothing at all”—“they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him” (v. 38). Baptism was administered to one who heard and embraced the gospel.[105] Similarly, while Peter was proclaiming the good news to Cornelius and his household, “the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. . . . Then Peter declared, ‘Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?’ And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (10:44, 47–48). In Luke’s second account of this incident, the reaction of the church to Cornelius’s conversion was to glorify God and say, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life” (11:18). As before, those who were baptized were those who heard the gospel, repented of their sins, and received the Holy Spirit.

This pattern is repeated with Lydia, the Philippian jailer, and the Corinthians. In the case of Lydia, “[t]he Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well . . .” (Acts 16:13–15). While some may be tempted to find support for infant baptism in Luke’s last phrase, most commentators agree that no such argument can be made because of the lack of information about the makeup of Lydia’s family. The assumption that some who were baptized were infants is as unfounded as the assumption that none were infants. What is clear, however, is that Lydia was baptized as one who gave heed to the gospel.

In the case of the Philippian jailer, he cried out to Paul and Silas, “‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ And they said, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.’ And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. . . . [A]nd he was baptized at once, he and all his family” (Acts 16:25–33). This case of household baptisms does give enough information about its constituents who then became recipients of baptism: all of them first heard the gospel, then they were all baptized.

As for the Corinthians, during his second missionary journey Paul was “occupied with the word, testifying to the Jews that the Christ was Jesus” (Acts 18:5). Luke notes the impact of Paul’s ministry: “Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized” (v. 8). Like the preceding narrative, this case of household baptisms gives adequate information about its members who were baptized: all of them first heard the gospel and believed in Jesus Christ; then they were all baptized. Thus, the New Testament presents several illustrations of people who hear the gospel, repent of their sins, and believe in Jesus Christ, as being the recipients of baptism.

In addition to biblical imperative and illustrations, biblical discussions of baptism provide justification for believer’s baptism. For example, Paul’s remark about his baptizing of some of the Corinthians—“(I did baptize also the household of Stephanas . . .” 1 Cor. 1:16)—is another occurrence of household baptism. Though insufficient information is provided in this parenthetical comment to make any conclusions about the makeup of this family, Paul’s final instructions at the end of his letter indicates that “the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints” (16:15). Clearly, the referent is to people who had embraced the gospel and engaged in fruitful ministry.

Furthermore, Paul’s discussion of baptism in Galatians emphasizes its link with faith. Indeed, his entire argument in chapter 3 is focused on faith: Christians receive the Spirit by faith (Gal. 3:2, 14), they mature by faith (v. 3), they work miracles by faith (v. 5), Abraham was justified by faith (v. 6), Gentiles are sons of Abraham by faith (vv. 7–9), Christians are made righteous by faith (vv. 10–11), and the law was given as a “guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith” (v. 24). Next, the apostle draws the link between faith and baptism: “But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ Jesus have put on Christ” (vv. 25–27). The same people who are baptized into Christ have put their faith in Christ.

In summary, the biblical command to baptize disciples of Christ, the biblical illustrations of the administration of baptism, and biblical discussions of baptism together constitute the first support for believer’s baptism.

Second, this initial support can be expanded to a critical affirmation: repentance from sin and faith in Jesus Christ, by which the gospel is appropriated, is a necessary prerequisite to baptism. This condition is often referred to as a credible profession because it is this profession that indicates the presence of genuine repentance and true saving faith in response to the message of salvation. Proponents of believer’s baptism insist that the biblical imperative of the Great Commission, the pattern of baptism that is set down in the New Testament, and the biblical discussions of baptism demand the conclusion that the proper recipients of baptism are people who have heard the good news, repented of their sins, and trusted in Christ for salvation.

Credobaptism maintains that, in contrast, paedobaptism fails to conform to this biblical material. The imperative of the Great Commission cannot be carried out with respect to infants, the biblical pattern illustrating baptism is broken by infant baptism, and the biblical discussion of baptism cannot apply to infant baptism. Infants who are incapable of hearing the gospel, turning from their sins, and embracing Jesus Christ by faith cannot be the recipients of baptism. They cannot give a credible profession of faith, which is a necessary prerequisite for the administration of baptism.

Third, believer’s baptism is supported by the history of the early church. The initial practice of this rite was the baptism of new converts. Furthermore, this manner continued to be the church’s practice for centuries; indeed, it was not until the fifth century that paedobaptism became the official manner of administrating this rite. In large part this was due to two issues that developed subsequent to the practice of believer’s baptism: the implications of original sin for infants (particularly those who face impending death), and a view of baptism as effecting the forgiveness of sins apart from conscious repentance and faith. The conjunction of these two issues became the theological ground for “salvific” infant baptism. Significantly, both proponents of believer’s baptism and Reformed paedobaptists agree that this particular understanding of baptism is biblically and theologically incorrect. Over against any theology of baptismal salvation, Reformed paedobaptists and credobaptists concur that baptism, whenever it is administered, does not remove the guilt and corruption inherited from Adam (nor does it forgive any other sins).

Accordingly, credobaptism insists that Reformed paedobaptism cannot claim pre-Reformation historical precedent for its position. Though the early and medieval church’s practice of infant baptism and Reformed paedobaptism share a family resemblance—both administer baptism to infants—they are fundamentally different practices due to the theological understandings upon which they are based. Accordingly, it is illegitimate to point to infant baptism administered to forgive original sin as constituting support for Reformed paedobaptism.[106] As both Reformed paedobaptism and believer’s baptism developed at about the same time, both must repudiate infant baptism for the forgiveness of original sin as administered by the (later) early church and the medieval church. Moreover, the fact that the first churches practiced believer’s baptism means that the historical support is on the side of credobaptism.

In summary, support for the position of believer’s baptism consists in biblical imperative, illustrations, and discussions of baptism; the necessity of hearing the gospel and responding to it with repentance and faith before the administration of baptism; and the practice of baptism in the early church.

Evaluation of Believer’s Baptism by Paedobaptism, and Rejoinders by Believer’s Baptism

To each of the above presentations of credobaptism and paedobaptism, the opposing position responds. In this section I will discuss the evaluation of believer’s baptism by the proponents of infant baptism and note rejoinders offered by credobaptism.[107]

Berkhof acknowledges that “the most important objection to infant baptism . . . is that, according to Scripture, baptism is conditioned on an active faith revealing itself in a credible profession.”[108] He admits that if such faith is required in all cases, then children are excluded from being baptized; however, he maintains that the Bible, which focuses on adults being baptized, “nowhere lays down the rule that an active faith is absolutely essential for the reception of baptism.”[109] His ground for making this claim is the fact that the Great Commission and its command to baptize were given by Christ in a particular missionary context and thus referred specifically to adults. He concludes, “The words of our Saviour imply that faith is a prerequisite for the baptism of those who through the missionary efforts of the Church would be brought to Christ, and do not imply that it is also a prerequisite for the baptism of children.”[110]

Credobaptism first addresses the admission that “the Bible clearly indicates that only those adults who believed were baptized.”[111] This statement is correct: the one and only pattern indicated in the New Testament is the baptism of people who heard the gospel, repented of their sins, and believed in Jesus Christ. Only after this appropriation of the message of salvation—a credible profession of faith—were people baptized. Proponents of believer’s baptism insist that this pattern, because it is the only pattern expressed in Scripture, is and must be normative for the church to follow in its theology and practice of baptism. This conviction is bolstered by both the Great Commission command and biblical discussion of baptism. Furthermore, the paedobaptist contention that Scripture “nowhere lays down the rule that an active faith is absolutely essential for the reception of baptism” seeks to open the door to exceptions to this pattern where no hint of any possible opening is given.

What about the claim that believer’s baptism is commended as the church’s practice in a missionary context, implying that when the church has become established in an area, then baptism of the infants of those adult Christ-followers is to be administered? In reply, it must be noted that the New Testament anticipates that the church will always exist in a missionary context; it never imagines a time in which the church will cease to be missional in nature. So how can paedobaptism assume anything about the theology and practice of baptism in a context that will never be a reality—at least not until Jesus Christ returns to this earth? New disciples of Jesus—and the church must be constantly making such—are to be baptized and taught the Christian faith, and infants are not capable of following the Lord and learning all that he has taught the church to obey. Finally, the contention that Scripture does not imply that faith is “a prerequisite for the baptism of children” is patient of the same criticism offered above: credobaptism does not grant the implication that the pattern of believer’s baptism—a pattern established in a missionary context—allows for any exceptions, particularly in a context that will not exist until Jesus Christ returns.

A second paedobaptist concern is that credobaptism fails to note several key biblical passages that emphasize the important roles that children play in the people of God. As noted above, three texts come to the forefront: Jesus’ reception of children (Matt. 19:14),[112] Peter’s announcement that the promise of salvation through the gospel was not only for his immediate hearers but for their children as well (Acts 2:39), and Paul’s statement that the children of believers are “made holy” (1 Cor. 7:14).[113] The conclusion paedobaptists draw from these passages is that infants are to enjoy incorporation into the new covenant community, the church.

On closer inspection, however, these texts do not support infant baptism. In the case of Jesus’ warm embrace of children, his reception has no tie to their baptism as infants. Indeed, Jesus’ use of children in this context is to illustrate the importance of all people having childlike faith. The idea of infant baptism is not present in Matthew’s text at all.

With respect to Peter’s promise (Acts 2:39), the offer comes directly from Joel’s prophecy, the fulfillment of which Peter’s spectators are beginning to witness: the unprecedented pouring out of the Holy Spirit on all people in the last days—beginning from Christ’s first coming and enduring until his second coming (Acts 2:17–21; citing Joel 2:28–32). As the apostle explains (Acts 2:38), the promise is for all who repent of their sins and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and it consists of the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. The offer is salvation for everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord (v. 21), for everyone whom the Lord God calls to himself (v. 39) through the words of the gospel, to which Peter gave witness (v. 40). Amazingly, the promise is for everyone. It “was extended not only to those present on that occasion, not only to the contemporary generation, but to their descendants as well; not only to the people of Jerusalem, but to those of distant lands,”[114] that is, “for all who are far off” (v. 39)—yes, even the Gentiles may be called by the Lord, may call upon the Lord, may repent, may receive the forgiveness of sins, may receive the Holy Spirit, may be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ! But infants—whether of Jewish or Gentile families—are not capable of engaging in these prerequisites for salvation and its accompaniment, baptism.

Finally, Paul’s affirmation that the children of believers are “holy” cannot be taken to refer to infant baptism. That the family members of Christ-followers—not only their children, but their unbelieving spouses as well (1 Cor. 7:14 includes both groups)—are “made holy” means that they are set apart by and for a special privilege, namely, close contact with fathers/husbands and mothers/wives who experience the grace of God and daily bear testimony to the love and forgiveness of God in Christ. Existing in this “realm of grace” can only be advantageous for spouses and children who do not yet know the Lord savingly. Accordingly, 1 Corinthians 7:14 does not support infant baptism, and neither does Matthew 19:14 or Acts 2:39.

Evaluation of Paedobaptism by Believer’s Baptism, and Rejoinders by Paedobaptism

In this section I will discuss the evaluation of infant baptism by proponents of believer’s baptism and note rejoinders offered by paedobaptism.

Proponents of believer’s baptism remain unconvinced by paedobaptism’s attempts to explain the lack of any explicit biblical imperative to baptize children, the absence of biblical illustrations of infants being baptized, and the difficulty of fitting infant baptism into biblical discussions of baptism. Because Berkhof (and other proponents of paedobaptism) commonly make a covenantal argument at this juncture, I will address that approach first and show its weaknesses. Stephen Wellum has crafted a fine response to the paedobaptist covenantal argument, and much of the following discussion follows his lead.[115]

According to paedobaptism, the various covenants established by God with his people can be grouped together under the one “covenant of grace.” Credobaptism disagrees with this approach, finding this grouping of the covenants together under one theological heading, “the covenant of grace,” to be unsatisfactory. On the one hand, this rubric succeeds in displaying the truth that the plan of God is a unified one, with the salvation of fallen human beings through the provision of divine grace as its aim. On the other hand, it masks the many discontinuities between the covenants. It collapses the differences between them, differences that demand that we refer to them with different adjectives: the Abrahamic covenant, the old covenant, the new covenant.

Specifically, the theological category “the covenant of grace” minimizes the biblical portrayal of the disjunctions between the Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant. Indeed, the Abrahamic covenant consisted of various aspects, as noted by the various uses of the expression the “seed of Abraham.”[116] This rubric “first refers to a natural (physical) seed, namely, every person who was in any way physically descended from Abraham such as Ishmael, Isaac, the sons of Keturah, and by extension Esau, Jacob, etc.”[117] Circumcision was the physical sign given to all of these physical descendants of Abraham, as well as everyone who was associated with them not by genetic link but by physical association (e.g., their slaves; Gen. 17:12). This was the case whether they were spiritually faithful to the Lord or not. The moniker “seed of Abraham” secondly “refers to a natural, yet special seed tied to God’s elective and saving purposes, namely Isaac, and by extension Jacob and the entire nation of Israel.”[118] Again, all of these members of the nation of Israel received circumcision, whether they were faithful Israelites or not. This mark demonstrated not only their physical relationship to Abraham but also their privileged position of being the line through which Messiah would eventually come.

The phrase refers thirdly to Messiah as the true/unique “seed of Abraham,”[119] as Paul underscores in Galatians 3:16. As a physical descendant of the patriarch, Messiah came from the nation of Israel and instituted the new covenant through his death and resurrection. A fourth—spiritual—sense of “seed of Abraham” includes two groups: before Christ, “any individual or group, regardless of ethnic background, properly related spiritually to God by faith, i.e., the redeemed”;[120] and, after Christ, all those who embrace Jesus as the Messiah by faith (Gal. 3:24–29): “It includes within it both believing Jews and Gentiles in the church. Given the new era that Christ has inaugurated, the way into Abraham’s family is not dependent on circumcision or the Torah, but comes through faith and spiritual rebirth. Only those who have experienced conversion are those who are Abraham’s ‘seed’ in this spiritual sense.”[121]

The implications of this discussion for credobaptism’s critique of paedobaptism are very important. Wellum notes the illegitimate identification and equation of the Abrahamic and new covenants, explaining, “to identify and equate the natural/special seed (Israel) with the spiritual seed (church) as well as to equate the covenant signs of circumcision and baptism is a mistake often made by paedobaptists.”[122] The identification is wrong because, “In the OT era, the people of God were both a nation and the spiritual people of God; circumcision signaled one’s affiliation with the nation. But even though circumcision marked one as a natural seed of Abraham and brought one into the nation of Israel, not all who were part of Israel were the spiritual seed (see Rom 9:6).”[123] This reality is not the same in the new covenant, in which only those who have embraced Jesus Christ by faith compose the spiritual seed of Abraham. “But now, in Christ, under his mediation, the relationship between Christ and his seed is no longer physical but spiritual, which entails that the covenant sign must only be applied to those who in fact are the spiritual seed of Abraham.”[124] Accordingly, only those who have made a credible profession of faith have become the spiritual seed of Abraham, and only they as Christ-followers may be given the sign of baptism—which means they receive believer’s baptism, not infant baptism.

Moreover, proponents of believer’s baptism dispute paedobaptism’s case for the essential identity of circumcision and (infant) baptism. Again, following Wellum, it is incorrect to hold that old covenant circumcision signifies the same spiritual reality as does new covenant baptism, and then maintain that baptism replaces circumcision in the church.

Specifically, for Abraham, circumcision signified his justification by faith; it was a sign and seal of the righteousness given to him because of his faith in the promise of God. This sign was unique to Abraham, for following him circumcision was administered both to those who believed like Abraham and to those who did not (e.g., Ishmael; Gen. 17:20–27). For others in the Abrahamic covenant (and the old covenant), circumcision was to “mark out a physical seed in preparation for the Messiah”: first, it “marked out a national entity,” the people of Israel, and second it “marked out a male line of descent from Abraham to David to Christ.”[125] Beginning with the Mosaic covenant, circumcision pointed to another reality: “the need of a spiritually circumcised heart which would result in a wholehearted devotion to the Lord”[126] (Deut. 30:6; cf. Jer. 4:4; 31:33; Ezek. 36:25–27). Thus, circumcision signaled a physical reality, a typological reality, and a future (new covenant) reality.

When Jesus Christ instituted the new covenant he did away with circumcision as “a sign of membership in the church” for both Jew and Gentile (Gal. 1:6–9; 2:11–16; 6:15; 1 Cor. 7:18–19).[127] Indeed, the Jerusalem council admitted that the Jews had never been able to bear the yoke of circumcision on their necks, and so Gentiles embracing Jesus Christ should never be troubled with circumcision (Acts 15:10, 19). Indeed, Gentile hearts, just like Jewish hearts, are cleansed by faith (v. 9). This means that the future reality to which circumcision pointed—the circumcision of the heart—is fulfilled, and the typological reality to which it pointed—Messiah—is fulfilled, now that Jesus the Christ has brought true circumcision (Col. 2:11–13). “But unlike circumcision, baptism is not a sign of physical descent, nor is it a sign that anticipates gospel realities. Rather it is a sign that signifies a believer’s union with Christ and all the benefits of that union. No doubt, baptism is analogous to circumcision in that it is an initiatory rite, but it is not a mere replacement of it.”[128] Accordingly, credobaptism does not accept paedobaptism’s case for the essential identity of circumcision and (infant) baptism.

Additionally, credobaptism doubts paedobaptism’s understanding of what infant baptism does. Recall Calvin’s idea of the benefit of this baptism for infants: “Being engrafted into the body of the church, they are somewhat more commended to the other members. Then, when they have grown up, they are greatly spurred to an earnest zeal for worshipping God by whom they were received as children through a solemn symbol of adoption before they were old enough to recognize him as Father.”[129] Berkhof described these children of the covenant as “heirs of the all-comprehensive covenant-promises of God, which include also the promise of the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit unto regeneration and sanctification. In the covenant God makes over to them a certain grant or donation in a formal and objective way, requires of them that they will in due time accept this by faith, and promises to make it a living reality in their lives by the operation of the Holy Spirit.”[130] In other words, paedobaptism understands this rite as commending infants to the covenant community as “prospective heirs of salvation”[131] and benefiting them by signaling the promise of a future divine work of regeneration and sanctification through the gospel that they will need to appropriate personally by faith. At the same time, paedobaptists insist that children are not baptized “on the ground of an assumption, but on the ground of a command and an act of God. Children must be baptized in virtue of the covenant of God.”[132]

Proponents of believer’s baptism object to this understanding for several reasons. One objection is that this meaning of baptism is nowhere to be found in Scripture. As I will outline a bit later, according to the New Testament, baptism symbolizes identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; cleansing from sin; escape from divine judgment; and incorporation into the new covenant community, entrance into which is through repentance from sin and faith in Jesus Christ for outsiders in relation to the church. But the New Testament does not indicate that this rite signals incorporation of children who are insiders in relation to the church, with the promise of a future work of salvation for infants so baptized.[133] Again, this position rests on an incorrect notion of the new covenant community.[134]

Credobaptism objects secondly that in the case of grown people who were baptized as infants but reject their covenant obligation to repent of sin and believe in Jesus Christ, the symbol is rendered void and the promise annulled, resulting in a great deal of confusion. Paedobaptists reply that this objection fails to discern that the church is a mixed community composed of both believers and unbelievers, including those people who were baptized as infants but who refuse to follow Christ. But this misses the point. At least for a time, the church considers children and young people (as they are growing up) to be members of the covenant community. At a certain point, when it becomes evident that these members are not Christ-followers, they are no longer considered to be members of the community. Berkhof describes this reality in these terms: “they show themselves unworthy of it [the divine promise of the blessings of salvation] and refuse it.”[135] One assumes that this manifestation of unworthiness and rejection of the promise consists of a lack of repentance and belief in the gospel, and this failure constitutes a sufficient reason for their removal from membership; thus, they are removed from membership because they are not believers. But they were never members because they were believers (they were members because of their inclusion into the covenant community through infant baptism, not because they believed in Jesus Christ). So they are dismissed from the covenant community for not being what they never were, which is quite strange and confusing.

A third objection: credobaptism wonders how children and young people, before they express faith in Christ and experience salvation, can be expected to meet the requirements of the covenant into which they were baptized without being spiritually prepared to do so. Yet, Berkhof contends, “the Church must regard them as prospective heirs of salvation, must regard them as under obligation to walk in the way of the covenant, has the right to expect that, under a faithful administration, they, speaking generally, will live in the covenant, and is in duty bound to regard them as covenant breakers, if they do not meet its requirements.”[136] Proponents of believer’s baptism question how it is possible for unsaved covenant members to discharge the requirements of the covenant without a new nature, the empowerment by the Holy Spirit, and the other resources provided by God to those saved by Jesus Christ.

Accordingly, credobaptism doubts paedobaptism’s understanding of what infant baptism does.

Paedobaptists offer an important rejoinder:

The Reformed covenant view does regard the sacrament rather differently than the believer’s baptism view. In the Reformed view, a sacrament is a visible sign and seal of the promise of God’s grace in Christ toward believers and their children. When the sacrament is viewed in this manner, the critical question is not whether the children of believers have already responded in faith to the gospel promise; rather, the critical question is whether God is pleased to include children as recipients of this promise in some special way (cf. Acts 2:39) so that they should also receive the sacrament that signifies and seals the promise to them.[137]

This rejoinder underscores credobaptism’s difficulty in grasping and appreciating the paedobaptist emphasis on baptism as a sacrament. Their differing views of baptism as a sacrament of the divine promise specifically to the children of believers, and the nature of that promise, clearly separates Reformed paedobaptism and believer’s baptism.

As a final evaluation of infant baptism by credobaptism, proponents of believer’s baptism question paedobaptism’s appeal to historical precedent in its support. Again looking at Berkhof,[138] his contention that the practice of infant baptism was common by the latter part of the second century seems exaggerated, especially because he appears to minimize Tertullian’s strong objections to paedobaptism at that time. His further assertion that the practice was well established by the middle of the third century is more on target, but again he fails to note the dissent voiced by Gregory of Nazianzus, which calls into question just how common paedobaptism was even in the fourth century.[139] Still, even if Berkhof is not completely accurate on how early infant baptism came to be the common exercise in the early church, everyone concedes that the practice did indeed come to dominate more or less after several centuries. Granting that, however, and as discussed above, I maintain that an appeal to the early church’s form of infant baptism as support for the Reformed version of paedobaptism is illegitimate. Though the two types share a family resemblance—both administer baptism to infants—they are fundamentally different practices due to the theological understandings upon which they are based. The former version is built on a theology of baptismal salvation, holding that this rite cleanses infants from original sin. The latter version is constructed on a covenantal argument and denies that baptism removes original sin from infants. This major difference must be squarely faced and, when it is, it renders Reformed paedobaptism’s appeal to the practice of infant baptism in the (later) early and medieval church an unconvincing argument for paedobaptism.[140]

THE PRACTICE OF BELIEVER’S BAPTISM

Having addressed the issue of who should be baptized, I turn now to a discussion of how believer’s baptism is to be practiced. I will look at this practice from the perspectives of its proper mode, its meaning, and its necessity, concluding with some general comments about miscellaneous matters.

The Mode of Baptism

Historically, three modes of baptism have been practiced in the church: immersion, or lowering a person completely under water and bringing her up out of the water; pouring a significant amount of water over the head of the person; and sprinkling a small quantity of water over the head of the person. Despite the widespread use of all three forms, the proper mode of baptism is immersion, as I will attempt to demonstrate.

Evidence for the correctness of this practice encompasses two areas: biblical presentations in which the Greek word βαπτίζω (baptizō) occurs, and the significance of the rite itself. As for the first area, the Septuagint (or LXX, the Greek translation of Hebrew Scripture) presents dipping in water using the root word βάπτω (baptō; e.g., Josh. 3:15; Ruth 2:14) and immersion in water using the intensive form βαπτίζω (baptizō; 2 Kings 5:14). This sense of immersion is seen in Matthew 3:16: “And when Jesus was baptized (βαπτίζω [baptizō]), immediately he went up from the water . . .” (cf. Mark 1:10). This last phrase confirms the mode of baptism as immersion: Jesus was lowered under the water and then came up from the water; it was not sprinkled or poured on him.

Evidence that this mode continued to be the practice of the early church is found in the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch by Philip: “And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, ‘See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?’ . . . And they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water . . .” (Acts 8:36–39). Though it is true that “no details are given” about the act of baptism itself [141]—thus pouring or sprinkling cannot be categorically ruled out—one must ask why they waited for a body of water into which the baptizer and the one to be baptized could go down? Surely, sufficient water for a different mode of baptism was available on board the chariot or with the eunuch’s entourage. Moreover, Luke’s commentary on the location of this narrative—“the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza. This is a desert place” (Acts 8:26)—underscores the unlikelihood of the group stumbling upon any water at all. Thus, Luke’s emphasis on this providential (miraculous?) provision of a body of water can be seen as indicative of how this act of baptism likely took place—by immersion.

It is the case that the New Testament uses a variety of words in its discussion of (1) Jewish ceremonial washings (of hands: νίπτω [niptō] and βαπτίζω [baptizō], Mark 7:3–4 and Luke 11:38; of dining utensils: βαπτισμός [baptismos], Mark 7:4); (2) old covenant rituals (ῥαντίζω [rhantizō], Heb. 9:13, 19, 21; βαπτισμός [baptismos], Heb. 9:10); (3) the washing away of sins (ἀπολύω [apoluō], Acts 22:16, showing the result or effect of Paul’s baptism, βαπτίζω [baptizō]);[142] (4) “the washing of regeneration” (λουτρόν [loutron], Titus 3:5); and (5) the sprinkling clean of hearts (ῥαντίζω [rhantizō], Heb. 10:22). However, in no account of the administration of baptism is any word other than βαπτίζω (baptizō) used. Taking our cue from the clear examples that baptism was by immersion, this mode seems to be the proper manner of administering this rite, rather than sprinkling or pouring.[143]

The meaning of baptism as set forth in the New Testament also supports immersion as the proper manner of administering this rite. Because this discussion introduces a new topic, I will address the meaning of baptism under the next heading and relate it to this discussion of the proper mode.

The Meaning of Baptism

The New Testament indicates several meanings for baptism. As baptism is in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19), this act associates the new Christian with the triune God. The one administering this ordinance pronounces the words—“I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”—and accordingly effects the association.[144] Just as the doctrine of the Trinity distinguishes Christianity from all other religions; just as worship of and prayer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit distinguishes Christianity from all other religions; just as salvation possesses a trinitarian structure;[145] so also baptism into the name of the triune God distinguishes Christianity from all other religions.

The apostle Paul, in his discussion of dying to sin and living for God, further connects baptism with identification with the major events—the death, burial, and resurrection—of the life of Christ: “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his” (Rom. 6:3–5; cf. Gal. 3:26–28). Immersing baptism vividly portrays this unification. Lowering a person completely under water clearly pictures identification with the death and burial of Jesus Christ. The baptized person, united with Christ in his death, has died to sin. Bringing that person up from under the water vividly depicts identification with Christ’s resurrection. The baptized person, united with Christ in his resurrection, has been made alive to God. Given this meaning of baptism, the mode of immersion best portrays this significance of baptism.[146] Moreover, this powerful symbolism is not communicated by the other modes of baptism.

Another meaning of baptism according to the New Testament is cleansing from sin.[147] Luke records Paul’s narration of his conversion, in which Ananias commands the persecutor of the church, “Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). Such cleansing from sin was the hope of the new covenant as prophesied by Ezekiel (Ezek. 36:25) and part of Peter’s challenge to his audience on the day of Pentecost: “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). This symbolism may also be at the heart of Paul’s discussion of washing from sin in 1 Corinthians 6:11, Ephesians 5:26, and Titus 3:5.[148] Immersing baptism vividly portrays this washing. Lowering a person completely under water clearly depicts cleansing from sin. The person in her totality has been washed of all sins and emerges forgiven of them all. Given this meaning of baptism, the mode of immersion best portrays it. Moreover, this powerful symbolism is not as well communicated by the other modes of baptism.[149]

Escape from divine judgment is another possible meaning of baptism.[150] Speaking of the time of Noah, “while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water,” the apostle Peter explained, “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:20–21). Just as Noah and his seven family members escaped the divine judgment meted out on the entire world at his time, so baptism now saves those who embrace Jesus Christ. Schreiner further explains this symbolism: “The survival of Noah and his family in the flood waters functions as a type (antitypon) of baptism. It seems that the waters of baptism are conceived of as a raging flood that destroys and kills. Such a view would fit with the notion that those submerged under water in baptism experience death, so to speak, under the baptismal waters. Just as Noah and his family survived the chaotic waters of death during the flood, so too believers in Jesus Christ have come through the baptismal waters alive.”[151] So as not to be misunderstood, Peter emphasizes that it is not the rite itself that saves by some external act of cleansing. Rather, baptism associated with a transaction between God and those being baptized—an appeal on their part for or from a good conscience[152]—is what rescues them from the divine judgment that will come upon the entire world. Immersing baptism vividly portrays this escape. Given this meaning of baptism, the mode of immersion best portrays this significance of baptism. Moreover, this powerful symbolism is not communicated by the other modes of baptism.[153]

A final meaning of baptism follows not from any specific passage of the New Testament but from a theological consideration. As one of the two signs of the new covenant (the other being the Lord’s Supper), baptism symbolizes incorporation into the new covenant community, the church. As the initial rite of integration into the new covenant, baptism signals a new convert’s intention to follow faithfully and obediently the covenant mediator, Jesus Christ, in the nurturing and missional community context of the church. As a corollary, the church administers baptism to this new Christian in accordance with her credible profession of faith, accompanied by an acknowledgment of her status as a new member of the covenant community.

While primarily grounded in theological considerations, this meaning of baptism is not without a biblical and historical basis. Peter’s command to his audience on the day of Pentecost—“Repent and be baptized every one of you” (Acts 2:38)—demanded a personal response of obedience on the part of each hearer. Luke’s conclusion to this Pentecost narrative—“So those who received his word were baptized” (v. 41)—indicates two things: Peter’s respondents were not self-baptized, and they were incorporated into the fledgling church (as confirmed by the following Lucan comments; vv. 42–47).[154] It is the church that is responsible for administering the baptism of new disciples. Thus, we have the church as an essential component of the advancement of the gospel, its appropriation, the new covenant, and the rite of baptism. As Barth explained,

A man’s turning to faithfulness to God, and consequently to calling upon him, is the work of this faithful God. Perfectly accomplished in the history of Jesus Christ, in virtue of the awakening, quickening and illuminating power of this history, it becomes a new beginning of life as his baptism with the Holy Spirit. The first step of this life of faithfulness to God—the Christian life—is a man’s baptism with water, which by his own decision is requested of the community and which is administered by the community. This is the binding confession of his obedience, conversion and hope, made in prayer for God’s grace, in which he honors the freedom of this grace.[155]

Historically, baptistic churches have tended to emphasize the obedience and confessional elements of baptism. As the Baptist Faith and Message notes, “It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead.”[156]

To summarize, baptism in the New Testament has several meanings. It associates the new Christian with the triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It vividly portrays identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It clearly pictures cleansing from sin. It vividly depicts escape from divine judgment. And it signals entrance into the new covenant community, the church. Given these multiple meanings of baptism, the mode of immersion best portrays all of the aspects of its significance. Moreover, this powerful symbolism is not as well communicated by the other modes of baptism.

Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

Baptism is not necessary for salvation. Its non-necessity does not, however, render it unimportant. This theological position stands opposed to both the Catholic view and the Stone-Campbell/Christian Church perspective.

This position is defensible in the following ways: biblically, this view makes the best sense of several passages of Scripture. In his rebuke of the divisiveness within the Corinthian church, Paul underscores the absurdity of such factionalism with a series of rhetorical questions (each of which has an implied negative response): “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor. 1:13). Working off of this final question, Paul makes a personal comment: “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanus. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)” (vv. 14–16). Though his memory was only partially jogged, the founder of the church of Corinth could nonetheless recall his baptism of only a few Corinthians, the few believers among the many whom he had led to Christ (“And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized”; Acts 18:8). Apparently, his associates—at least Silas and Timothy, perhaps others (Acts 18:5)—administered baptism in the case of these many others. If this were all the information Scripture provided, perhaps the conclusion could still be drawn that baptism is necessary for salvation though it may be administered by Christians other than those who first communicate the gospel to its recipients. But Paul gives a specific reason for why he did not administer baptism to (most of) the Corinthian converts: “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 1:17). This explanation seems unconscionable if baptism were necessary for salvation. How could the apostle claim a divine mandate to provide only a partial means of salvation? The fact that he was commissioned by Christ to proclaim the good news underscores that this and only this means is necessary for salvation—provided, of course, that it is received by faith, as Paul indicates in the continuation of his discussion (v. 21). But Paul’s explanation makes sense if baptism is not necessary for salvation.

This position of the non-necessity of baptism also makes sense of the discussion of salvation and its means of appropriation at the council in Jerusalem (Acts 15). As discussed in detail earlier in the book, the council was provoked by a contingent of Judaizing Christians who stirred up trouble among the new Gentile Christians by insisting that salvation must be appropriated by something—namely, circumcision and obedience to the Law of Moses—in addition to faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 15:1, 5, 24). The unequivocal point rehearsed at the council and made explicit by the apostle Peter was that salvation for the Jews, just as salvation for the Gentiles, is by God’s grace appropriated by faith (vv. 7–11). If there were ever a time for the early church to insist on the necessity of baptism for salvation, certainly this debate was the opportune moment. But no such proposal was made, discussed, or ratified at this council.[157]

Champions of the opposite view—that baptism is indeed necessary for salvation—often point to Acts 2:38 in support. At the conclusion of his Pentecost sermon, Peter urged his audience to respond to the gospel, specifying, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Proponents of this position understand this passage to affirm the necessity of baptism for salvation; often, this view is referred to as “baptismal regeneration.”

On closer inspection, however, Acts 2:38 does not support this view. On the one hand, as Robert Stein demonstrates from the New Testament, “In the experience of becoming a Christian, five integrally related components took place at the same time, usually on the same day: repentance, faith, confession, receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, and baptism.”[158] Thus, to hear the gospel and respond positively to it with repentance, but not be baptized, was unthinkable; the early Christians were baptized Christians. On the other hand, as Ardel Caneday underscores, “When we read or hear Acts 2:38, it is easy to confuse the efficient and instrumental causes of salvation.”[159] The efficient cause, or the only ground, of salvation, is God’s gracious, redemptive work in Jesus Christ; his death and resurrection accomplished salvation for sinful human beings. The instrumental cause, or the means, of salvation, is (according to this verse) repentance and baptism; turning from sin and expressing this act by submitting to baptism is the way of appropriating the salvation accomplished for sinful human beings by Jesus Christ. Accordingly, the immersion of a repentant woman in water does not save her; it is not and cannot be necessary as the grounds of her salvation. Rather, “repentance-baptism”[160] is the means by which she embraces the forgiveness of sins that Christ has provided for her. Caneday thus warns us not to “suppress the proper function of baptism as a means of God’s grace and abstract baptism from repentance as separable rather than merely distinguishable.”[161]

Accordingly, baptism is not necessary for salvation; still, its non-necessity does not render it unimportant. Martin Luther is a reliable guide on striking the balance between avoiding the two extremes of insisting on baptism as necessary for salvation and minimizing the importance of the rite as if it is not necessary. In a point of difference from the Catholic theology of baptism, Luther denied the absolute necessity of baptism in order to be saved: “A man may believe even though he is not baptized. For baptism is no more than an outward sign to admonish us concerning the divine promise. If one can have it, it is good to take it, for no one should despise it. If one cannot have it, or is refused it, he is not damned if he only believes the gospel. For where the gospel is, there is baptism and everything a Christian needs.”[162] On the other hand, taking a stand against those who denied the importance of baptism—they maintained that “baptism is an external thing, and that external things are of no benefit”—Luther insisted on its necessity: “Baptism is no human trifle, but instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is most solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we cannot be saved, lest any one regard it as a trifling matter.”[163] Thus, Luther rejected the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation against the Catholic insistence on the sacrament, while he underscored its necessity against those who wished to dispense with baptism entirely.

Accordingly, the church, while avoiding the error of insisting that baptism is necessary for salvation, must obey the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19) by teaching and urging new converts to be baptized (e.g., Acts 2:38). Though not necessary for salvation, baptism is necessary as an act of obedience to the Lord who has commanded it.

Miscellaneous Matters for Believer’s Baptism

With regard to the practice of believer’s baptism, several miscellaneous matters are commonly raised. One regards the proper age for baptism. As emphasized above, the prerequisite for baptism is a credible profession of faith that flows from hearing and understanding the gospel. Given this emphasis, the question of the proper age for baptism is secondary to the question of what constitutes a credible profession of faith.

For some proponents of believer’s baptism, a credible profession of faith is any type of agreement with the good news. This position could allow for children as young as three or four years old to be baptized. When they begin to grasp the rudiments of the gospel and their need for Jesus to come into their life, and they can express their assent to him, they offer a credible profession of faith and should be baptized.

For other credobaptists, such a profession cannot achieve an adequate level of credibility, for several reasons. Children cannot understand the abstract concepts of sin and grace, of Christ and his death in the place of sinners and his resurrection; thus, they cannot grasp the gospel at such a young age. Moreover, children are designed by God to be responsive to their parents and others who exercise authority over them and instruct them. Thus, when a four-year-old responds to the prompting of her parents or the encouragement of her Sunday school teacher to accept Jesus into her heart, her positive answer pleases her parents or her teacher and is the proper reaction to their encouragement, but it may do little in terms of constituting a credible profession of faith. Furthermore, in terms of the specific administration of baptism by Baptists, they have historically baptized people when they were in their twenties. A case can be made that the lowering of the typical baptism age has contributed to the carnality of the church and its unregenerate membership. Correlatively, delay in the baptism of children should help to reduce professions of faith that later prove themselves to be false. Given these and other factors, some proponents of believer’s baptism—for example, Mark Dever—urge the church to wait until young men and women have made other adult-level decisions before assessing the credibility of their profession of faith, leading to baptizing them. When they go off to college, begin a career, and have their faith tested in the world, then their profession of faith gains credibility. At that point, the church should baptize them.[164]

This view does not mean that children should not be evangelized and encouraged to repent of their sins and believe in Jesus Christ until they are older or almost adults. Nor does it mean that children cannot become genuine Christ-followers. Also, the position does not mean that because they are not baptized, children are not to be held accountable by the church. Indeed, the church has a sacred responsibility toward them in terms of praying for them, discipling them, equipping them for ministry, explaining the purpose for baptism, and so forth. But the position does insist that a credible profession of faith be offered before the church administers baptism.

Of course, there are objections to this position. To withhold baptism from children who have genuinely repented and trusted in Christ casts aspersions on their salvation. Furthermore, a lengthy delay between becoming Christ-followers (for example, children at the age of eight) and being baptized (for example, those same children ten years later at the age of eighteen) illegitimately separates what Scripture links closely together (conversion and baptism) and weakens the powerful symbolism conveyed by this rite. Perhaps the most important objection is that withholding baptism until later robs boys and girls of an important element in their maturity. As one person expressed it, he was helped significantly to resist temptation and walk obediently and faithfully with Christ during his teenage years because he had been baptized as a child. Having publicly proclaimed his resolve to follow Christ and bear witness to his grace, this person refused to engage in dishonoring behavior in high school that would have brought shame to his Lord and contradicted his public testimony. Other objections—the postponement of baptism cuts down on the number of baptisms that the church can report; parents will become angered if the church refuses to baptize their children—are not as noble as these first objections.

Certainly, Scripture does not address the age of baptism, so the church will need to seek wisdom as it prayerfully considers this matter. Also, if it decides to adopt a general principle, room should be made for exceptions in extraordinary cases. I personally hold to the view that the church should give serious consideration to baptizing children in their early teenage years as their spiritual aptitude is developing.

This position on the baptism of children prompts another issue: in the case of people (other than children) who hear the gospel, repent of their sins, and believe in Jesus Christ for salvation, should a period of time elapse—for catechism, for observing the genuineness of their conversion—before they are baptized? As I attempt to adhere strictly to the New Testament pattern for the practice of baptism, I advocate for baptism very soon after a person has embraced the gospel. This position assumes that the new convert has given a credible profession of faith and thus has demonstrated a sufficient genuineness of having grasped onto Christ so as to be saved. It further assumes that biblical teaching on baptism—its importance, meaning, and practice—has been communicated to the new Christian and understood, but this instructional process is not a lengthy one. Because the church will never achieve a complete guarantee that a person’s conversion is absolutely genuine, to aim at such assurance—and, correlatively, postpone baptism until such a point is reached—is unrealistic; that level of confidence has not been granted to the church in its earthly pilgrimage. What it looks for instead is an adequate demonstration of saving faith in Christ, cognizant that it regrettably will baptize some people who turn out not to be genuine Christians. To withhold baptism for the purpose of seeking an exaggerated level of assurance of genuine conversion is wrong. Also, to delay baptism until the new disciple can be instructed in doctrine, equipped to serve, and guided in other matters of Christian maturity is to confuse preparing a devoted Christ-follower for church membership and/or service and preparing her for baptism. What is envisioned here is a gospel-centered and discipleship-oriented church that regularly baptizes new Christians soon after they embrace salvation through Jesus Christ and provides many ongoing opportunities for worship, learning, serving, witnessing, fellowship, and the like.

Another miscellaneous matter with respect to credobaptism is the issue of rebaptism. Because this rite is administered by the church—intended here as the universal body of Christ expressed as a local assembly of Christians—I disagree with rebaptism. If a person has heard the gospel, repented of sin, believed in Christ, and, upon his credible profession of faith has been baptized (clearly, I am addressing believer’s baptism, not infant baptism) that person’s baptism avails for all time. It may not and cannot be repeated. Indeed, what could such a rebaptism possibly symbolize or accomplish that has not already been symbolized or accomplished by his baptism? Accordingly, the practice of rebaptism is wrong and should be strenuously avoided and denounced. And, when a Christian making application for membership has already been baptized in another church, whether or not of the same denomination, he should not be rebaptized.

This emphasis on baptism being a rite administered by the church addresses a final miscellaneous issue: who should administer the baptism? Even if they don’t engage in the actual administration of baptism, the church’s leaders at least need to act in a supervisory capacity—ensuring that proper instruction about baptism has been provided, that the candidate(s) has/have articulated a credible profession of faith, that the one performing the baptism is prepared to do so in the proper manner, and that all the necessary preparations for the baptismal celebration have been made. In most cases, the elders will administer the baptism, but nothing in Scripture prevents a member of the church—e.g., a father who has led his son or daughter to Christ, a friend who has been the instrument used by God to bring someone to faith—from engaging in the act of baptizing.

Covering the many issues in this chapter on baptism reminds the church of the importance of this ordinance. Beyond baptism, another ordinance has been given by Christ to his church, the ongoing rite of the Lord’s Supper. It is to the theology and practice of that ordinance that I now turn.

___________________

[1]Peter Lombard, in his very influential Four Books of Sentences (written 1147—1151), was the first to fix the number of sacraments at seven.

[2]The adjective dominical comes from the Latin word Dominus, or Lord, a title ascribed to Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Thus, when the adjective is used, it refers to something having to do with Jesus Christ. In this specific case, dominical warrant refers to justification given by Jesus Christ himself.

[3]To take each one specifically: confirmation is not found in Scripture and has no sign associated with it. Penance or reconciliation is based on a misunderstanding of Jesus’ command “Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand” (Matt. 4:17). Marriage, while biblically mandated (Gen. 1:28; 2:24) and endorsed by Jesus (Matt. 19:1–9), is a creation ordinance rather than something ordained specifically by Jesus himself. Holy orders—the consecration of men to the priesthood—has no biblical support; indeed, its insistence on the vows of celibacy and poverty is against Scripture. Extreme unction, or last rites, does have biblical warrant and oil as its sign (James 5:13–17), but Jesus himself did not ordain the practice.

[4]The Latin Vulgate translates the word μυστήριον as sacramentum in Ephesians 1:9; 3:9; 5:32; Colossians 1:27; 1 Timothy 3:16; and Revelation 1:20; 17:7.

[5]Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday/Image Books, 1995), 1118.

[6]The following discussion is taken from my Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 640.

[7]Augustine, On the Catechizing of the Uninstructed, 26.50 (NPNF^1 3:312).

[8]Augustine, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and On the Baptism of Infants, 1.33 (NPNF^1 5:28). His biblical allusions are to John 3:5; 6:47, 53; and 3:36.

[9] For example: Augsburg Confession, 13; Thirty-nine Articles, 12.1–2; Westminster Confession of Faith, 27.1–3.

[10]Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946), 3:499–502.

[11]For a fine introduction to a Reformed theology of the sacraments, see Michael S. Horton, People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 99–113.

[12]This section is adapted from my Historical Theology, 611–631.

[13]A proselyte is a new convert to a religion, philosophy, or way of life. Thus, non-Jews (called Gentiles) who embraced the Jewish faith were proselytes, and part of their conversion process was proselyte baptism. As many scholars point out, the link between proselyte baptism and Christian baptism is a tenuous one. As Andreas Köstenberger concludes, “the early Church’s practice of baptism cannot be adequately explained by, or accounted for, by appealing to proselyte baptism as a precedent. Apart from the question of whether or not proselyte baptism predates Christian baptism (which is far from certain), there are important theological distinctions in the way in which baptism was conceived that make a link between these two kinds of baptism tenuous at best and illegitimate at worst” (Andreas J. Köstenberger, “Baptism in the Gospels,” in Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright, NAC Studies in Bible and Theology [Nashville: B&H Academic, 2006], 12–13; cf. Scot McKnight, A Light among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991], 82–85).

[14]Didache 9.5 (ANF 7:380), in The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, ed. Michael W. Holmes (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999), 261.

[15]Didache 7 (ANF 7:379), in ibid., 259.

[16]Tertullian listed the first four purposes; the final two were also advocated as purposes of baptism by other early church leaders. Tertullian, Against Marcion 1.28 (ANF 3:293). These six purposes became the foundation for the Catholic Church’s theology and practice of baptism.

[17]Cyprian, Treatise 11: Exhortation to Martyrdom, preface 4 (ANF 5:497); cf. Justin Martyr, First Apology 61 (ANF 1:183); Letter of Barnabas 11 (ANF 1:144).

[18]Tertullian, On Baptism 2 (ANF 3:669); cf. Cyprian, Letter 51.22 (ANF 5:332).

[19]Cyprian, Treatise 8: On Words and Alms 2 (ANF 5:476).

[20]Origen, Commentary on Matthew 13.27 (ANF 9:491).

[21]Cyprian, Letter 73.6 (ANF 5:388).

[22]Irenaeus, Fragment 34 (ANF 1:574).

[23]Tertullian, On Baptism 12 (ANF 3:674–675). But what about biblical characters like Abraham, for whom faith was sufficient for salvation? Tertullian granted that “in days gone by, there was salvation by means of bare faith, before the passion and resurrection of the Lord. But now that faith has been enlarged and has become a faith that believes in his nativity, passion and resurrection, there has been an amplification added to the sacrament, that is, the sealing act of baptism. In some sense, this is the clothing of the faith that before was bare and that cannot exist now without its proper law. For the law of baptism has been imposed” (ibid., 13 [ANF 3:676]).

[24]Origen, Commentary on John 6.17 (ANF 9:367); cf. idem, On Baptism 5–7 (ANF 3:672).

[25]Tertullian, The Shows 4 (ANF 3:81); cf. idem. The Crown 3 (ANF 3:94).

[26]Basil the Great, Treatise on the Holy Spirit 15.35 (NPNF^2 8:21–22).

[27]Cyprian, Letter 69.1 (ANF 5:376); cf. Ignatius The Letter to the Ephesians 18.2 (ANF 1:57); Basil the Great, Treatise on the Holy Spirit 15.35 (NPNF^2 8:22).

[28]Tertullian, On Baptism 7 (ANF 3:672).

[29]Ibid., 8 (ANF 3:672–673); cf. Cyprian, Letter 71.1 (ANF 5:378); and Letter 72.9 (ANF 5:381).

[30]Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 16:9–25; 17:1–2, in The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, ed. Gregory Dix (London: Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, 1968), 24–28; cf. Apostolic Constitutions 7.3.39 (ANF 7:475–476); Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, prologue (NPNF^2 5:473–474); Augustine, On the Catechizing of the Uninstructed 15.23 (NPNF^1 3:298–299).

[31]Tertullian, On Repentance 6 (ANF 3:662).

[32]Tertullian, On Baptism 18 (ANF 3:678). Some consider the earliest reference to infant baptism to come in Irenaeus’s theory of recapitulation: “Jesus came to save all by means of himself—all, I say, who through him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.22.4 [ANF 1:391]). If the phrase “born again to God” refers to baptism, then infants would here be said to be baptized.

[33]Origen, Commentary on Romans 5.9.3, in Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, trans. Thomas P. Scheck, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2001), 1:367.

[34]He appealed to John 3:5 for biblical support (Origen, Homilies on the Gospel of Luke 14.5; cited in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, 5 vols. (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1971–1991), 1:291.

[35]Cyprian, Letter 58.2 (ANF 5:353–354).

[36]Cyprian, Letter 58.5 (ANF 5:354).

[37]Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence 2.51 (NPNF^1 5:304).

[38]Augustine, On Original Sin 21 (NPNF^1 5:244).

[39]In 417, the Council of Carthage (canon 2) made it explicit: “If anyone says that new born children do not need to be baptized, or that they are baptized for the forgiveness of sins, but that no original sin is derived from Adam to be washed away in the laver of regeneration—so that in their case the baptismal formula ‘for the forgiveness of sins’ is to be taken in a fictitious and not in its true sense—let him be anathema [condemned to hell]” (cited in Documents of the Christian Church, ed. Henry Bettenson and Chris Maunder, 3rd ed. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999], 64).

[40]Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists 6.10.15 (NPNF^1 4:484).

[41]Ibid., 7.53.102 (NPNF^1 4:513). The wording has been slightly modified to make it more clear. In the case of the baptism of infants, the Church’s faith would avail for them.

[42]Ibid., 3.14.19 (NPNF^1 4:441).

[43]These Reformers are referred to as magisterial in that they advocated the centuries-old church-state relationship that accorded magistrates, or government leaders, a very important role to play in church life and polity. This position contrasts with that of free churches, who denied any role for the state in matters of the church.

[44]Martin Luther, The Small Catechism, 4.2, in Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols. (New York: Harper, 1877–1905), 3:85.

[45]Martin Luther, “On Baptism,” The Large Catechism, 4.28, in Triglot Concordia: The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, trans. F. Bente and W. H. T. Dan (St. Louis: Concordia, 1921), 739.

[46]Luther, “On Infant Baptism,” The Large Catechism, in Triglot Concordia, 745.

[47]Ibid.

[48]Ibid.

[49]Huldrych Zwingli, Of Baptism, in Zwingli and Bullinger, trans. and ed. G. W. Bromiley, Library of Christian Classics 24 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953), 151. This sign of identification is not for those being baptized, but “for the benefit of other believers” (ibid., 137).

[50]Ibid., 147. Zwingli turned to the baptism of John the Baptist in support of this idea.

[51]“For some time I myself was deceived by the error and I thought it better not to baptize children until they came to years of discretion” (ibid., 139).

[52]Huldrych Zwingli, Refutation of the Tricks of the Baptists, in Ulrich Zwingli, Selected Works, ed. S. M. Jackson (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972), 139.

[53]Zwingli, Of Baptism, in Zwingli and Bullinger, 132.

[54]Ibid., 146–147, 167.

[55]He also cited John the Baptist and Jeremiah as examples of infants still in their mothers’ womb who had the Holy Spirit. Thus, Zwingli refuted the Anabaptists’ insistence that only those who have the Holy Spirit should be baptized (ibid., 149).

[56]Ibid., 158.

[57]Ibid., 148.

[58]The Council enacted the following Order to Baptize Infants on January 18, 1525: “Whereas an error has arisen regarding baptism, that young children should not be baptized until they reach the age of accountability and know what the faith is: and whereas some have accordingly neglected to have their children baptized, our Lords the Burgomaster, Council, and Great Council, have had a disputation held about this matter to learn what Holy Scripture has to say about it. As they have learned from it that, notwithstanding this error, children should be baptized as soon as they are born, all those therefore who have hitherto allowed their children to remain unbaptized, must have them baptized within the next week: and whosoever will not do this, must with wife and child, goods and chattels [property], leave our city, jurisdiction, and dominions or await what will be done with them. Every one will accordingly know how to conduct himself” (Order to Baptize Infants, in Documents Illustrative of the Continental Reformation, ed. B. J. Kidd [Oxford: Clarendon, 1911], 211).

[59]The penalty prescribed was death by drowning, a terrible mockery of the Anabaptist belief. Felix Manz was the first to suffer this capital punishment. With Zwingli and the other Zurich ministers as observers, Manz was drowned in the Limmat River running through the city.

[60]For example, Balthasar Hubmaier noted that he searched in vain for a biblical text stating, “Go into all the world and baptize young infants, teaching them some years later” (Balthasar Hubmaier, On the Christian Baptism of Believers, 146; cited in Rollin Stely Armour, Anabaptist Baptism: A Representative Study, Studies in Anabaptist and Mennonite History 11 [Scottsdale, PA: Herald, 1966], 28).

[61]Hubmaier, On the Christian Baptism of Believers, 127–131, cited in Armour, Anabaptist Baptism, 28.

[62]Hubmaier, On the Christian Baptism of Believers, 137, cited in Armour, Anabaptist Baptism, 28–29.

[63]Balthasar Hubmaier, Gespräch, 210, cited in Armour, Anabaptist Baptism, 30.

[64]Zwingli, Of Baptism, in Bromiley, Zwingli and Bullinger, 133.

[65]Hubmaier, On the Christian Baptism of Believers, 136, cited in Armour, Anabaptist Baptism, 29.

[66]Balthasar Hubmaier, Eine Christliche Lehrtafel, 313, cited in Armour, Anabaptist Baptism, 31.

[67]Gunnar Westin and Torsten Bergsten, eds., Balthasar Hubmaier: Schriften, 140–146, cited in Armour, Anabaptist Baptism, 29.

[68]Schleitheim Confession, article 1, in William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, rev. ed. (Valley Forge, PA: Judson, 1969), 25.

[69]John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 4.16.4.

[70]Ibid., 4.16.6.

[71]Ibid., 4.16.7.

[72]Ibid., 4.16.9.

[73]Ibid.

[74]Ibid.

[75]Ibid., 4.15.10.

[76]Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, seventh session (March 3, 1547), Decree on Baptism, canon 3, in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 2:122–123.

[77]Ibid., canon 13, in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 2:124–125.

[78]John Smyth, The Character of the Beast, in The Works of John Smyth, ed. W. T. Whitley, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1915), 2:565.

[79]London Confession of Faith, 39, 40, in Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, 167.

[80]Second London Confession of Faith, 26, in Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, 291.

[81]Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 4th rev. and enlarged ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 632–638; cf. Horton, People and Place, 113–119; Gregg Strawbridge, ed., The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2003); Douglas Wilson, To a Thousand Generations—Infant Baptism: Covenant Mercy for the People of God (Moscow, Idaho: Canon, 1996); James V. Brownson, The Promise of Baptism: An Introduction to Baptism in Scripture and the Reformed Tradition (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007).

[82]Ibid., 632.

[83]Ibid.

[84]Ibid., 633.

[85]Ibid.

[86]While Berkhof emphasizes the continuity of the new covenant with the Abrahamic covenant, the Westminster Confession of Faith (7.5–6) underscores the continuity it enjoys with the old covenant.

[87]Horton concurs with this point. Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 794.

[88]Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 633.

[89]Ibid.

[90]Ibid.

[91]Ibid.

[92]Ibid., 634; cf. Westminster Confession of Faith, 27.5.

[93]Ibid.

[94]Ibid.

[95]Ibid.; affirmed also by Horton, Christian Faith, 795.

[96]Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 634.

[97]Ibid.

[98]As does Horton, Christian Faith, 795.

[99]Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 634.

[100]Ibid.

[101]Ibid., 635.

[102]Ibid., 638.

[103]Ibid.

[104]For further discussion, see G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962); Paul King Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2978); Larry E. Dyer, Baptism: The Believer’s First Obedience (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2000).

[105]Such acceptance of the good news is indicated both textually, in Luke’s comment that the eunuch “went on his way rejoicing”—this note of joy or rejoicing is thematized throughout Luke’s Gospel and his book of Acts (e.g., Luke 2:10; 10:20; 15:3–8; 19:6; Acts 8:8; 13:48; 15:3) and indicates that salvation has come—and in the textual emendation of this narrative (8:37 is added in some later copies of Acts to make explicit the eunuch’s faith resulting in salvation).

[106]This consideration does not apply directly to the Lutheran theology and practice of baptism, which embraces some version of baptismal salvation from original sin, because Lutheran theology dissents from Catholic baptismal regeneration by insisting that the efficacy of baptism is based on the Word of God and not on the unqualified principle of ex opere operato.

[107]For further discussion, see John H. Armstrong, gen. ed., Understanding Four Views of Baptism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007).

[108]Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 637.

[109]Ibid.

[110]Ibid.

[111]Ibid.

[112]For an emotional appeal for infant baptism based on this text, see Edmund P. Clowney, The Church: Sacraments, Worship, Ministry, Mission, Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 282–284.

[113]For a discussion of this text and what it means that the children of believing parents (or of a believing parent) are “holy,” see Herman Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, vol. 4 of Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 529–530.

[114]F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts. NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 78.

[115]Stephen J. Wellum, “Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants,” in Believer’s Baptism, 97–161.

[116]On this issue, both Wellum and I have been influenced by John S. Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988), 63–86. In his discussion, Feinberg notes four senses of the expression “seed of Abraham”: biological, ethnic, national; political; spiritual; typological (ibid., 72).

[117]Wellum, “Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants,” 133.

[118]Ibid., 134.

[119]Ibid., 135.

[120]Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” 72.

[121]Wellum, “Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants,” 135.

[122]Ibid., 136.

[123]Ibid.

[124]Ibid., 136–137.

[125]Ibid., 155.

[126]Ibid., 156.

[127]Ibid.

[128]Ibid., 157.

[129]Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.16.9.

[130]Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 638.

[131]Ibid.

[132]Ibid., 639. Berkhof cites Abraham Kuyper, Handboek van de Gereformeerde Dogmatick, 655; cf. Horton, Christian Faith, 797.

[133]Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 640–641.

[134]This point is biblically warranted by Jeremiah 31:29–34 (and underscored in Hebrews 8) and emphasized by Thomas R. Schreiner, “Baptism in the Epistles: An Initiation Rite for Believers,” in Believer’s Baptism, 87–92.

[135]Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 641.

[136]Ibid.

[137]Cornelis Venema offers this rejoinder in his critique of Schreiner and Wright’s Believer’s Baptism (Cornelis P. Venema, review of Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, JETS 52/3 [September 2009]: 655–661).

[138]He is followed in this argument by Horton, Christian Faith, 797.

[139]Gregory of Nazianzus, Orations 40.28 (NPNF2 7:370).

[140]This approach has some overlap with Huldrych Zwingli’s dismissal of the early and medieval church’s practice of infant baptism. As he explained in his treatise on baptism (in which he presented a new form of infant baptism), “In this matter of baptism—if I may be pardoned for saying it—I can only conclude that all the doctors have been in error from the time of the apostles. This is a serious and weighty assertion, and I make it with such reluctance that had I not been compelled to do so by contentious spirits [i.e., the Anabaptists] I would have preferred to keep silence and simply to teach the truth. But it will be seen that the assertion is a true one: for all the doctors have ascribed to the water a power which it does not have and the holy apostles did not teach. . . . Our present task is to see what baptism really is. At many points we shall have to tread a different path from that taken either by ancient or more modern writers or by our own contemporaries. We shall be guided not by our own caprice but by the Word of God.” This discussion makes it clear that Zwingli did not appeal to historical precedent for his (novel) idea of infant baptism. Rather, he denounced the theology and practice of baptism that the church had embraced after the apostles (Zwingli, Of Baptism, in Bromiley, Zwingli and Bullinger, 130).

[141]Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 313. Haenchen is correct: The two expressions—“they both went down into the water” and “they came up out of the water”—refer not to the act of baptism itself—that is recounted in the phrase “and he [Philip] baptized him [the eunuch],” without elaboration—but to the movement of the two men to the watery location in preparation for the baptism and away from that location afterward.

[142]1 Corinthians 6:11 also has ἀπολύω (apoluō), but this “washing” makes no reference to baptism.

[143]Importantly, even someone like Thomas Aquinas, in his presentation of pouring and sprinkling as valid modes of baptism, admits that immersion is the “safer” manner of administration “because this is the more ordinary fashion.” He notes the usefulness of the other two modes in urgent cases: “because there is a great number to be baptized . . . or through there being but a small supply of water; or through feebleness of the minister, who cannot hold up the candidate for baptism; or through feebleness of the candidate, whose life might be endangered by immersion” (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 3.66.7).

[144]Speaking of the biblical expressions of baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38) and “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19), Bavinck comments, “These expressions are not intended to furnish a formula that has to be voiced in baptism but describe the essence of Christian baptism: this must be a baptism into the name of Christ and hence into the name of the Triune God” (Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 518). However, if the words are not pronounced as the ordinance is being administered, how else is the association effected? Here, speech-act theory can help us: when the administrator pronounces the words as the new Christian is being baptized with water, the pronouncement effects the association. Just as a pastor or justice of the peace communicates “I now pronounce you husband and wife” to a man and a woman at a wedding ceremony and effects their marriage, so also the one baptizing pronounces the baptismal formula and effects the association of the new Christian with the triune God. See J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962); John R. Seale, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974); idem; Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986). Some evangelical theologians, applying speech-act theory, have found it helpful for theology.

[145]For a helpful discussion of this trinitarian framework, see Fred Sanders, The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010).

[146]As noted by Horton (though he tempers this note with reference to 1 Cor. 10:1–2), Christian Faith, 792–793.

[147]I need to emphasize that paedobaptism agrees with these various meanings of baptism. Taking Calvin (and following his discussion) as representative, paedobaptism acknowledges that baptism signifies cleansing from sin, mortification of the flesh, and union with Christ (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.15.1, 5, 6). Accordingly, proponents of both infant baptism and believer’s baptism have much overlap in terms of their understanding of the multiple meanings of baptism. But they disagree over which mode—immersion, pouring, or sprinkling—best symbolizes all of these aspects of baptism’s significance.

[148]Biblical scholars are divided as to whether these passages allude to baptism or not. For a discussion, see Schreiner, “Baptism in the Epistles,” 83–86. He notes scholars who relate these passages to baptism—e.g., Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 162–167, 200–204, 209–216—and those who do not—e.g., J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Studies in Biblical Theology, second series 15 (London: SCM, 1970), 121–123.

[149]I allow that both pouring and sprinkling may symbolize the cleansing from sin, as their proponents contend. But if, following Calvin, these proponents see multiple meanings for baptism, then they must squarely face the question of which mode—immersion, pouring, or sprinkling—best symbolizes all of the aspects of its significance. Clearly, identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ is vividly and accurately portrayed by immersing baptism and not by the other modes.

[150]Recognition of the difficult nature of this passage prompts some hesitation on my part to embrace this as a sure meaning of baptism. But biblical scholars like Jim Hamilton note the repeated imagery of the flood, symbolizing divine judgment, throughout Scripture. For example, he points to the exodus through the Red Sea (salvation for the people of Israel was effected by its parting, but judgment befell the Egyptians by the collapse of the water) and the portrayal of conquering armies moving against Israel as flooding waters (e.g., Isaiah 8; Psalm 124) (James M. Hamilton Jr., What Is Biblical Theology? [Wheaton: Crossway, forthcoming]).

[151]Schreiner, “Baptism in the Epistles,” 69 (cf. 82).

[152]For a discussion and bibliography of the debate between these different views, see ibid., 70.

[153]As noted by Horton (though he tempers this note with a reference to 1 Cor. 10:1–2), Christian Faith, 792–793.

[154]“And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. . . . And all who believed were together and had all things in common. . . . And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes. . . . ” Robert Stein calls attention to the important role of the church in the process of people becoming Christians, including their baptism. He first underscores an important historical note: “Neither Jewish proselyte baptism, whose date is much debated, nor the baptism of John were autobaptisms (see b. Yebam. 47ab; Matt. 3:6, 13–14; etc.; see also John 4:2).” He concludes, “Since Christian baptism is also not an autobaptism (note the use of the passive voice in Acts 2:38, 41; 8:12–13, 16, 36, 38; etc.), there must be a third party in the conversion process, that is, the church” (Robert H. Stein, “Baptism in Luke-Acts,” in Believer’s Baptism, 55).

[155]Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, 4.4.title, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance, 14 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010), 2.

[156]Baptist Faith and Message, section 7, “Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.”

[157]Interestingly, this silence on baptism is particularly troubling for paedobaptists who build the case for infant baptism on its parallelism with circumcision. Assuming for the sake of discussion the correctness of infant baptism, it would seem reasonable that, during a critical debate about circumcision and its necessity for salvation, the apostles would have exposed the error of this position by noting simply that circumcision cannot be necessary for salvation because it has been replaced by (infant) baptism. But no such argument was made. For more discussion, see Schreiner, “Baptism in the Epistles,” 90–91.

[158]Stein, “Baptism in Luke-Acts,” 52; cf. idem, “Baptism and Becoming a Christian in the New Testament,” SBJT 2/1 (Spring 1998): 6–17.

[159]A. B. Caneday, “Baptism in the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement,” in Believer’s Baptism, 312.

[160]Stein, “Baptism in Luke-Acts,” 49, 50.

[161]Caneday, “Baptism in the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement,” 312.

[162]Martin Luther, Weimarer Ausgabe 10, 3, 142, 18; cited in Barth, Church Dogmatics, 4.4, p. 155.

[163]Martin Luther, Larger Catechism, 13.4.

[164]Mark Dever, “Baptism in the Context of the Local Church,” in Believer’s Baptism, 344–350. See further comments at www.ninemarks.org.

CHAPTER

ELEVEN

THE LORD’S SUPPER

The second ordinance administered in Protestant churches is the Lord’s Supper, also commonly called the Eucharist (from the Greek word εὐχαριστία [eucharistia; thanksgiving], which Jesus offered when he instituted this ordinance; Mark 14:23; cf. 1 Cor. 11:24); communion or holy communion (from Paul’s affirmation that partaking of the cup and bread is communion [κοινωνία; koinōnia] with the blood and body of Jesus Christ; 1 Cor. 10:16); the Lord’s Table (from 1 Cor. 10:21); and the breaking of bread (from the description of the early church’s practice; Acts 2:42).[1] According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper as part of his Last Supper, or celebration of the Passover with his twelve disciples, shortly before he was betrayed.[2] Only one other New Testament writing—1 Corinthians—treats this ordinance in detail, as the apostle Paul, in the midst of his diatribe against the church of Corinth’s abuse of the Lord’s Supper, explains the tradition he received concerning its practice. The book of Acts notes that the earliest Christians celebrated this ordinance frequently (Acts 2:42), and the earliest writings penned after the New Testament confirm this regular practice. Historically, the church has administered the Lord’s Supper to all Christians who have first been baptized (either as infants, through paedobaptism, or as adults, through believer’s baptism) and are members in good standing in the church.

However, what was instituted and should be celebrated as an expression of the church’s unity has turned into the very antithesis: because of different understandings of this ordinance—understandings particularly focused on the nature of the presence of Jesus Christ in the celebration (e.g., transubstantiation, consubstantiation)—the Lord’s Supper has been and continues to be a source of disunity and conflict among churches. At times, the physicality of the Lord’s Supper has presented a problem for some Christians: a Gnostic influenced perspective tends to deprecate the material/physical as it exalts the immaterial/spiritual, leading to a minimization or entire dismissal of the celebration of this ordinance. Other conflicts have arisen over who can rightly administer the Lord’s Supper (any Christ-follower, or priests/pastors only), who are the proper recipients of this ordinance (any Christian from any church, or only members of the church observing it), what are the correct elements to be used (bread and wine, bread and wine with water, bread and grape juice, rice cakes and saki), and how frequently the Lord’s Supper should be observed (daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or yearly).

Because of the various understandings of the Lord’s Supper held by churches, I will open this chapter with a discussion of the history of this ordinance. After tracing its development in the early and medieval church, I will focus on the five principal views of the Lord’s Supper that have emerged from this development: Catholic transubstantiation, Lutheran consubstantiation (or sacramental union), the memorial view of Zwingli, the spiritual presence view of Calvin, and Anabaptist and Baptist views. After discussing the history of the ordinance, I will explore in some detail the key New Testament passages that set forth the biblical teaching on the Lord’s Supper. I will then conclude with a discussion of my own perspective and address some matters of application.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT: THE EARLY AND MEDIEVAL CHURCH[3]

The earliest Christian communities continued to observe the Lord’s Supper initiated by Jesus himself and explained by Paul. The Didache gives us the earliest glimpse into the celebration of the Eucharist, explaining that it must involve prayers of thanksgiving and giving this restriction: “But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for the Lord has also spoken concerning this: ‘Do not give what is holy to dogs.’”[4] Justin Martyr provided further details of this celebration. It began with thanksgiving for the bread and for the cup, which contained “wine mixed with water.”[5] The deacons distributed the elements to all the baptized faithful, including those present at church as well as the sick and others who could not attend. Again, a restriction was enforced: “This food is called among us Εὐχαριστια [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed [baptized] with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is living as Christ has enjoined.”[6]

Several points should be underscored. Only baptized believers could participate in the Lord’s Supper. As Cyprian explained, “For by baptism, the Holy Spirit is received. Therefore, those who are baptized and have received the Holy Spirit are allowed to drink of the Lord’s cup.”[7] As for non-Christians in attendance at church: “When they wish to repent, [we receive the pagans] into the church to hear the word, but do not receive them to communion until they have received the seal of baptism, and are made complete Christians.”[8] Moreover, only baptized believers who were in proper relationship to Jesus Christ and his church were allowed to participate. Referring to Paul’s warning in 1 Corinthians 11:27–32, Origen urged Christians to observe the Lord’s Supper in a worthy manner.[9] On the basis of this same passage, Cyprian decried the fact that many lapsed believers—Christians who had denied the faith during a time of intense persecution—were so quickly allowed to participate in communion, before they could adequately repent of abandoning the faith. He warned that this reprehensible practice profanes “the sacred body of the Lord.”[10] Furthermore, celebration of the Lord’s Supper was part and parcel of every weekly church gathering.[11] Finally, the elements employed in this rite were bread and a cup containing a mixture of wine and water. Cyprian defended this practice as originating with Jesus Christ.[12] Thus, as the Lord himself celebrated the first communion with bread and a cup containing both wine and water, so too must the church.[13]

The early church developed several views of the Lord’s Supper.[14] For some, the Lord’s Supper was seen as a sacrifice. They linked this eucharistic sacrifice to the prophecy of Malachi, who rebuked the people of Israel for their worthless offerings and looked forward to a true sacrifice—“in every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name”—among the Gentiles (Mal. 1:10–11, NIV [1984]). The Didache appealed to this passage to encourage proper participation in the “sacrifice” of the Lord’s Supper: “On the Lord’s own day gather together and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who has a quarrel with a companion join you until they have been reconciled, so that your sacrifice may not be defiled.”[15] This sacrificial view of the Eucharist was also tied to Jesus’ words from the Sermon on the Mount about offering one’s gift on the altar (Matt. 5:23–24).[16]

While it is clear that sacrificial language was associated with the Lord’s Supper, it is not as clear what the early church believed about the nature of the sacrifice. According to Irenaeus, the sacrifices are the bread and the cup of wine, the first fruits of the divine creation.[17] Yet, he held another view as well, speaking of the Lord’s Supper in terms of the actual body of Christ: “For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation [consecration] of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.”[18] Thus, when the bread is offered to God during the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, it is not only common bread but the body of Jesus Christ as well. This latter, heavenly reality nourishes the human flesh that feeds on the offering, and it makes the body a participant in Christ’s resurrection life. A similar sacrificial idea can be found in Cyprian’s striking parallel: as Christ the High Priest offered himself as a sacrifice to the Father, so the church’s ministers as priests offer a real sacrifice to God when celebrating the Lord’s Supper.[19] For Cyprian, this parallel was warranted because “the Lord’s passion is the sacrifice which we offer.”[20]

This idea rested on a belief in the reality of the presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Addressing the heresy of the docetists, Ignatius noted a crucial error: “They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father by his goodness raised up.”[21] Thus, just as these heretics denied the reality of the body of Jesus Christ in his incarnation, so they denied the reality of his body in the Eucharist. Ignatius, however, held to a one-to-one correspondence between the bread and cup and the body and blood of Jesus Christ: “I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ who is of the seed of David; and for drink I want his blood, which is incorruptible love.”[22] Thus, the elements of the Eucharist were considered to be “the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh,”[23] transformed by the Word of God[24] and the Holy Spirit.[25]

In addition to this sacrificial element, the act of commemoration was a key aspect of the Lord’s Supper. Justin Martyr saw the eucharistic elements referenced in Isaiah 33:13–19: “Now it is evident that this prophecy alludes to the bread that our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of his being made flesh for the sake of his believers, for whom he also suffered; and to the cup that he gave us to drink, in remembrance of his own blood, with giving of thanks.”[26] Thus, he emphasized the commemorative element of the Eucharist, “the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering that he endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all sin.”[27] In the midst of his very realistic language about the bread and cup, even Cyprian underscored that “Christ has first offered himself a sacrifice to the Father, and he has commanded this to be done in commemoration of himself.”[28]

Others in the early church viewed the Lord’s Supper in strongly symbolic terms. Addressing the heretic Marcion, Tertullian used the eucharistic elements to demonstrate the wrongness of Marcion’s denial of the real body of Jesus Christ:

Having taken the bread and given it to his disciples, Jesus made it his own body, saying, “This is my body,” that is, the symbol of my body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there were first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. Similarly, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed “in his blood,” he affirms the reality of his body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh.[29]

Still, for Tertullian, the elements are not empty symbols, for he also affirmed that “the flesh—the human body—feeds on the body and blood of Christ.”[30]

The early church also noted several benefits of participation in the Lord’s Supper. According to Ignatius, the eucharistic bread is “the medicine of immortality, the antidote we take in order not to die but to live forever in Jesus Christ.”[31] Irenaeus believed that the Supper nourishes believers and encourages them to give thanks to God.[32] Moreover, Origen underscored the fact that the very term emphasizes this benefit: “We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread that we call the Eucharist.”[33] Furthermore, Clement of Alexandria underscored the sanctifying benefit of participation in the Supper.[34] This sanctification demands a radical break from sinful activities, as Cyprian urged: “The sanctified body and temple of God is not polluted by adultery, nor is the innocence dedicated to righteousness stained with the contagion of fraud; neither, after the Eucharist carried it, is the hand spotted with the sword and blood.”[35]

Augustine offered two perspectives on the Lord’s Supper. On the one hand, he maintained that Christ is truly present in the elements: “That bread that you see on the altar, sanctified by the Word of God, is Christ’s body. That cup, or rather the contents of that cup, sanctified by the Word of God, is Christ’s blood. By these elements the Lord Christ willed to convey his body and his blood, which he shed for us.”[36] Augustine’s notion of ex opere operato (literally, “by the work performed”) meant that grace is communicated through the sacrament regardless of who gives it and who receives it, because Christ is truly present. Thus, Augustine held a realistic view of the Lord’s Supper: Christ is objectively present in the bread and the cup of wine.

On the other hand, he held a symbolic position, as evidenced by his general notion of a sacrament as an outward and visible sign of an invisible yet genuine grace.[37] Augustine explicitly denied that the body and blood of the Lord’s Supper are identical with Christ’s historical body, as seen in his interpretation of the words Jesus spoke to his disciples at the institution of the Supper: “Understand spiritually what I said. You are not to eat this body which you see, nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth. . . . Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.”[38] Indeed Christ explained, “what it is to eat his body and to drink his blood. . . . That it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat [food] and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him.”[39]

But Augustine did not stop here. Appealing to Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 10:17, he challenged Christians to live what the Lord’s Supper communicates—the unity of the members of the body of Christ:

One bread; what is this one bread? The one body which we, being many, are. Remember that bread is not made from one grain, but from many. . . . Be what you can see, and receive what you are. . . . [S]o too with the wine. Brothers and sisters, just remind yourselves what wine is made from; many grapes hang in the bunch, but the juice of the grapes is poured together in one vessel. That too is how the Lord Christ signified us, how he wished us to belong to him, how he consecrated the sacrament of our peace and unity on his table.[40]

Thus, for Augustine, the Lord’s Supper portrays the unity of church members and challenges them to live genuinely as members of the body of Christ.

In the ninth century a controversy erupted over the nature of the presence of Jesus Christ in the Lord’s Supper. The debate centered around opposing treatises entitled On the Body and Blood of the Lord, the one by Paschasius Radbertus affirming a real presence of Christ, the other by fellow monk Ratramnus denying that reality.[41] Paschasius Radbertus’s view was adopted. Following his lead, the church began to emphasize the reality of the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrifice of the Lord’s Supper. When a similar controversy flared up in the eleventh century and Berengar of Tours opposed the identification of the bread and the wine with the historical body and blood of Christ, he was forced to repudiate his view by signing a statement affirming that “the bread and wine which are placed on the altar are, after consecration, not only a sacrament but the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that these are sensibly handled and broken by the hands of priests and crushed by the teeth of the faithful, not only sacramentally but in reality.”[42] As this view persisted and developed, the Eucharist became elevated above the other sacraments of the church.

This position raised many crucial questions, the most important of which was how the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The decision on this matter led to the definitive position of the Catholic Church, which becomes the first of the five principal views to be treated in the following sections.

THE FIVE PRINCIPAL VIEWS OF THE LORD’S SUPPER

Catholic Transubstantiation[43]

The word substance came to hold special significance in the church’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper at this time, due to a fresh return to ancient philosophy. In particular, Aristotle’s use of the term substance to refer to a thing existing in itself (and not in something else) was taken up in discussions of the Eucharist: the change that takes place at the words of institution is a change in the substance of the bread and wine. Specifically, Aristotle had spoken of substance as a thing that has characteristics, or attributes, that are of two types: essential attributes—qualities of the core of a thing and that cannot be lost without losing the thing itself—and accidental attributes—qualities not of the core of a thing and that can be lost without losing the thing itself. Some of these accidents—appearance, taste, smell, texture, and sound—of a thing can be perceived by the senses. Guitmond of Aversa parlayed this discussion into the definitive formula for the eucharistic transformation: while the accidents of the bread and wine remain the same—the elements still look like, taste like, smell like, and feel like bread and wine—their substance with its essential attributes is transformed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Rolando Bandinelli, later to become Pope Alexander III, coined the term transubstantiation in 1140 to refer to this substantial change.[44]

The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 made the official pronouncement of the church’s position regarding the eucharistic presence of Jesus Christ, “whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine. The bread is transubstantiated into the body and the wine into the blood by the power of God, so we may receive from him what he has received from us.”[45] Thus, the doctrine of transubstantiation was officially affirmed in the church.[46]

Following the official decree of the Fourth Lateran Council, Thomas Aquinas offered the definitive theological and philosophical framework to support transubstantiation. He explained how conversion of one substance into another—something that is naturally impossible—can take place by divine power with the Eucharist:

God is infinite act; thus, his action extends to the whole nature of being. Therefore, he can work not only formal conversion, so that diverse forms succeed each other in the same subject; but also the change of being itself, so that the whole substance of one thing be changed into the whole substance of another. And this is done by divine power in this sacrament. For the whole substance of the bread is changed into the whole substance of Christ’s body, and the whole substance of the wine into the whole substance of Christ’s blood. Thus, this is not a formal, but a substantial conversion; nor is it a kind of natural movement. Rather, with a name of its own, it can be called transubstantiation.[47]

Though the substance changes, the accidents of the bread and wine remain.[48] By joining Aristotelian philosophy with the church’s dogmatic theology of the Lord’s Supper, Aquinas set forth the definitive Catholic view of the presence of Christ during the celebration of the Eucharist.

Today, the Catholic sacrament of the Eucharist, “the source and summit of the Christian life,”[49] is administered in much the same way as it has been for centuries. Some important post–Vatican II[50] differences include a pronounced emphasis on the Liturgy of the Word preceding the Liturgy of the Eucharist[51] and “communion in both kinds.”[52] Transubstantiation is effected when the bishop or priest elevates first the bread, then the cup, and calls upon the Holy Spirit (the epiclesis) and then recounts the institution of the Lord’s Supper in the institution narrative. The church also remembers what Christ has accomplished and presents the offering of Jesus Christ to the Father (the anamnesis):

In the epiclesis, the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit (or the power of his blessing) on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit. . . . In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ’s body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all. In the anamnesis that follows, the Church calls to mind the Passion, resurrection, and glorious return of Christ Jesus; she presents to the Father the offering of his Son which reconciles us with him.[53]

The Catholic Church believes that the Eucharistic celebration is both “a sacrifice of praise in thanksgiving for the work of creation”[54] and a re-presentation and sacramental offering of the once-and-for-all sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary. The mass is not only a memorial of the unique sacrifice; it also makes present that sacrifice and is itself a sacrifice, giving those who participate in it “the very body which he [Christ] gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he ‘poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.’ The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit.”[55] The sacrifice of Jesus Christ that was offered two thousand years ago participates in the atemporality of God (he is not and cannot be limited in time); accordingly, “the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: ‘The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.’ ‘And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner . . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.’”[56]

The Catholic faithful are invited to participate and may receive communion in both kinds—the bread and the cup—or in one kind—the bread; indeed, the Catechism acknowledges that “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.”[57] The benefits of the divine grace received include strengthening of union with Christ, cleansing from sins committed and preservation from future mortal sins, removal of venial sins, uniting of the church, and encouragement to help the poor.[58] This grace is communicated to the participants ex opere operato (“from the work performed”); that is, the benefits of the Eucharistic grace are not dependent on the bishop or priest who administers the sacrament, though the benefits are proportional to the spiritual receptivity and state of the participants.[59]

Lutheran Consubstantiation (or Sacramental Union)[60]

Though protests against the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation had been voiced for centuries prior to the Reformation, Martin Luther’s denunciation thereof was one of the major doctrinal disputes between Catholicism and what would come to be called Protestantism. Like John Wycliffe before him, Luther underscored the lack of biblical evidence for transubstantiation as it was developed by Thomas Aquinas, concluding, “What is asserted without the Scriptures or proven revelation may be held as an opinion, but need not be believed. But this opinion of Thomas hangs so completely in the air without support of Scripture or reason that it seems to me he knows neither his philosophy nor his logic.”[61] Indeed, Luther censured Aquinas for misunderstanding and misusing Aristotelian philosophy to explain the “miracle” of transubstantiation.[62]

Luther found the Catholic position problematic for several reasons. At the heart of his rejection of transubstantiation was an important principle of interpreting the words of Scripture: “They are to be retained in their simplest meaning as far as possible. Unless the context manifestly compels it, they are not to be understood apart from their grammatical and proper sense.”[63] Applying this to the discussion of the Lord’s Supper, Luther noted, “It is an absurd and unheard-of juggling with words to understand ‘bread’ to mean ‘the form or accidents of bread,’ and ‘wine’ to mean ‘the form or accidents of wine.’ . . . [It is] not right to enfeeble the words of God in this way, and by depriving them of their meaning to cause so much harm.”[64] Luther also appealed to the history of the church: “The church kept the true faith for more than twelve hundred years, during which time the holy fathers never, at any time or place, mentioned this transubstantiation (a monstrous word and a monstrous idea), until the pseudo philosophy of Aristotle began to make its inroads into the church in these last three hundred years.”[65] Luther could not subscribe to such a recent doctrine, one that lacked the clear support of the early church. To conclude the matter, he pointed out that “laymen have never become familiar with their fine-spun philosophy of substance and accidents, and could not grasp it if it were taught to them.”[66]

Attached to this rejection of transubstantiation was Luther’s condemnation of the Catholic Church for communion in one kind—that is, celebration of the Eucharist by giving the lay people the bread only and withholding the cup[67]—and for its view of the mass as “a good work and a sacrifice.”[68] As a result, “this abuse has brought an endless host of other abuses in its train, so that the faith of this sacrament has become utterly extinct and the holy sacrament has been turned into mere merchandise, market, and a profit-making business.”[69]

To counter this illegitimate view, Luther offered his own understanding of the Lord’s Supper—it is Christ’s testament: “A testament, as everyone knows, is a promise made by one about to die, in which he designates his bequest and appoints his heirs. A testament, therefore, involves first, the death of the testator, and second, the promise of an inheritance and the naming of the heir.” He provided biblical warrant for his view: “Christ testifies concerning his death when he says, ‘This is my body, which is given, this is my blood, which is poured out’ [Luke 22:19–22]. He names and designates the bequest when he says ‘for the forgiveness of sins’ [Matt. 26:28]. But he appoints the heirs when he says ‘For you [Luke 22:19–20; 1 Cor. 11:24] and for many’ [Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24], that is, for those who accept and believe the promise of the testator. For here it is faith that makes men heirs.” Luther concluded: “You see, therefore, that what we call the mass is a promise of the forgiveness of sins made to us by God, and such a promise as has been confirmed by the death of the Son of God.”[70]

Though he dissented from the official doctrine of transubstantiation and formulated his own view of the Lord’s Supper as a testament, Luther continued to uphold the view that Jesus Christ is truly and completely present in the sacrament. Indeed, the sacrament “is the very body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, under the institution of Christ himself.”[71] Luther called this view a “sacramental union”: “Why then should we not much more say in the Supper, ‘This is my body,’ even though bread and body are two distinct substances, and the word ‘this’ indicates the bread? Here, too, out of two kinds of objects a union has taken place, which I shall call a ‘sacramental union,’ because Christ’s body and the bread are given to us as a sacrament.”[72]

Luther supported his position with several key points. Hermeneutically, for Luther, Christ’s words of institution—“This is my body”—are to be taken literally, not figuratively. On this point, Luther clashed with Huldrych Zwingli who, as we shall see, insisted that this expression should be understood symbolically. Furthermore, on the basis of biblical statements that Christ is seated at the right hand of God the Father, Luther held that Christ is present everywhere. Again Luther was at odds with Zwingli, who stressed that in this case the words are literally true—Christ’s body is localized in one space next to the Father in heaven; thus, it cannot be present physically in the Lord’s Supper. For Luther, however, given the fact that the right hand of God is everywhere—the expression refers to the ruling power of God, which is present in every place—then Christ is present everywhere. This shows “at least in one way how God could bring it about that Christ is in heaven and his body in the Supper at the same time.”[73]

Specifically, Luther believed that the human body of Christ could be everywhere present because of something that took place when the divine Son became incarnate as the God-man, Jesus Christ. In the incarnation, “since the divinity and humanity are one person in Christ, the Scriptures ascribe to the divinity, because of this personal union, all that happens to humanity, and vice versa.”[74] Because of this union, Jesus Christ, including his human nature—which in and of itself is localized in one space and not present in every space—is ubiquitous, or everywhere present: “Wherever Christ is according to his divinity, he is there as a natural, divine person and he is also naturally and personally there. . . . But if he is present naturally and personally wherever he is, then he must be man there, too, because he is not two separate persons but a single person. Wherever this person is, it is the single, indivisible person, and if you can say, ‘Here is God,’ then you must also say, ‘Christ the man is present too.’”[75]

The view of the Lord’s Supper of Luther and his followers eventually came to be called (by its opponents) consubstantiation: the body of Christ is present “in, with [con], and under” the substance of the bread.[76] This is not transubstantiation, which holds that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Rather, consubstantiation holds that the body of Christ is present “in, with, and under” the bread. A helpful analogy is the relationship between water and the sponge in which it is contained: the water is not the sponge, and the sponge is not the water, but wherever the sponge is, there too is the water. According to the summary of the Formula of Concord (1580), “We maintain and believe, according to the simple words of the testament of Christ, the true, yet supernatural eating of the body of Christ, as also the drinking of His blood, which human senses and reason do not comprehend.”[77] Consubstantiation became the Lutheran contribution to the controversies regarding the Lord’s Supper at the time of the Reformation.[78]

These first two views—transubstantiation and consubstantiation—believe in the physical presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Three other views developed that either held that Christ is not present, or is present spiritually rather than physically, in the Lord’s Supper. These views are the Zwinglian memorial view, Calvin’s spiritual presence view, and the Anabaptist/Baptist view.

Zwinglian Memorial View[79]

Huldrych Zwingli developed a very different notion of the Lord’s Supper. Like his contemporary Luther, he dissented from the Catholic idea of transubstantiation.[80] One of his major arguments against it relied on Augustine’s emphasis that Christ’s body is located at the right hand of God the Father: “The body of Christ has to be in some particular place in heaven by reason of its character as a true body. And again: Seeing that the body of Christ rose from the dead, it is necessarily in one place. The body of Christ is not in several places at one and the same time any more than our bodies are.”[81] Consequently, “it cannot therefore be present in this way in the Supper.”[82] Furthermore, he criticized the Catholic hermeneutical approach to Jesus’ words that instituted the Lord’s Supper; for Zwingli, they should not be taken literally, but figuratively.[83] This is proved, he claimed, by Christ’s own words in John 6:63: “The flesh profits nothing” (cf. NASB).[84] In light of this statement, the words of institution—“This is my body”—cannot be understood literally. The physical body of Christ would be of no benefit.

Zwingli also voiced opposition to Luther’s view of the Lord’s Supper, which he considered to be based on a literal interpretation of Matthew 26:26. Zwingli insisted that a literal interpretation would mean that transubstantiation is the correct view, a point he had already proved wrong.[85]

In formulating his own view over against transubstantiation and consubstantiation, Zwingli was influenced by Cornelius Hoen, who argued that a better rendering of “This is my body” would be “This signifies my body.” Zwingli explained,

It has already become clear enough that in this context the word “is” cannot be taken literally. Hence it follows that it must be taken metaphorically or figuratively. In the words: “This is my body,” the word “this” means the bread, and the word “body” [means] the body that is put to death for us. Therefore the word “is” cannot be taken literally, for the bread is not the body and cannot be. . . . Necessarily, then, it must be taken figuratively or metaphorically; “This is my body,” means, “The bread signifies my body” or “is a figure of my body.”[86]

For further proof, Zwingli turned to Jesus, who immediately after saying, “This is my body” (Luke 22:19) “adds, ‘Do this in remembrance of me,’ from which it follows that the bread is only a figure [symbol] of his body to remind us in the Supper that the body was crucified for us.”[87] Thus, Zwingli emphasized the Lord’s Supper as a memorial.

As a memorial, the key to the observance of the Lord’s Supper is remembering what Christ accomplished on the cross, and this requires faith. Returning to John 6, Zwingli offered this comment from verse 47: “This is one of the clear places which teach us that by eating his flesh and blood Christ simply means believing in the one who gave his flesh and blood that we might live. It is not eating or seeing or perceiving him who saves, but believing on him.”[88] Still, the sacrament is necessary because, as an oath, it is God’s pledge of his faithfulness to keep his promise of forgiveness for his people.[89]

As his position developed, Zwingli switched from viewing the Lord’s Supper as a pledge of a divine oath to viewing it as a pledge of believers to Christ and his church, a pledge “by which someone proves to the church that he either intends to be, or already is, a soldier of Christ, and which informs the whole church, rather than himself, of his faith.”[90] From his service as a chaplain in the Swiss army, Zwingli drew upon two analogies to explain the Lord’s Supper in terms of a military oath. First, a Swiss soldier was marked by a white cross (think of the Swiss flag with a white cross on a red background), indicating his loyalty to the Swiss Confederacy. Second, a Swiss citizen went on a pilgrimage to Nähenfels, the site of a battle between Swiss and Austrian forces in 1388 that marked the beginning of the Swiss Confederacy:

If a man sews on a white cross, he proclaims that he is a Confederate [soldier]. And if he makes the pilgrimage to Nähenfels and gives God praise and thanksgiving for the victory vouchsafed [granted] to our forefathers, he testifies that he is a Confederate [soldier] indeed. . . . And the man who in the remembrance or Supper gives thanks to God in the congregation testifies to the fact that from the very heart he rejoices in the death of Christ and thanks him for it.[91]

Thus, the Lord’s Supper is “a demonstration of allegiance” by a believer to the church, by which he swears obedience to it. And it is a memorial of the death of Christ, the event that gave birth to the church. By it, the Christian calls to mind what Christ did, as though Christ said, “I entrust to you a symbol of this my surrender and testament, to awaken in you the remembrance of me and of my goodness to you, so that when you see this bread and this cup, held forth in this memorial supper, you may remember me as delivered up for you, just as if you saw me before you as you see me now, eating with you.”[92]

Luther and Zwingli faced off against each other at the Marburg Colloquy in 1529. At issue were fifteen points of disagreement between Luther and his sympathizers (chief among whom was Philip Melanchthon) and Zwingli and his followers (including John Oecolampadius and Martin Bucer). On fourteen of the points discussed, these leading theologians of the Reformation arrived at agreement. On the fifteenth point, however, the colloquy only served to widen the chasm. There would be no consensus on the Lord’s Supper: “We have not agreed at this moment whether the true body and blood of Christ be corporeally present in the bread and wine.”[93] The memorial view became Zwingli’s contribution to the controversies regarding the Lord’s Supper at the time of the Reformation.

Calvinist Spiritual Presence View[94]

John Calvin, like the other Reformers, denounced the Catholic view of transubstantiation.[95] At the same time, he dissented from both Lutheran consubstantiation[96] and Zwingli’s position.[97] Taking into consideration all of these wayward views, Calvin expressed contentment with any belief that affirmed the true presence of Christ in the eucharistic elements, adding, “It must be expressed in such a way that they [Christians] may be understood not to receive it solely by imagination or understanding of mind, but to enjoy the thing itself as nourishment of eternal life.”[98]

Calvin turned to John 6 for his theology of this sacrament, noting, “Just as bread and wine sustain physical life, so are souls fed by Christ. We now understand the purpose of this mystical blessing, namely, to confirm for us the fact that the Lord’s body was once for all so sacrificed for us that we may now feed upon it, and by feeding feel in ourselves the working of that unique sacrifice. And that his blood was once so shed for us in order to be our perpetual drink.”[99] Thus, Christ himself is spiritually present in the Lord’s Supper such that Christians may feed upon his body and drink his blood.[100] The tokens of the bread and wine are surely symbols, admitted Calvin. But, he argued, in the Supper God does not present “a vain and empty sign but manifests there the effectiveness of his Spirit to fulfill what he promised”:[101]

I indeed admit that the breaking of bread is a symbol; it is not the thing itself. But, having admitted this, we shall nevertheless duly infer that by the showing of the symbol the thing itself is also shown. For unless a man means to call God a deceiver, he would never dare assert that an empty symbol is set forth by him. Therefore, if the Lord truly represents the participation in his body through the breaking of bread, there ought not be the least doubt that he truly presents and shows his body.[102]

Calvin agreed with Zwingli—and strongly disagreed with Luther—that the glorified body of Christ is now in heaven, seated next to the Father. So how can Christ himself be present in the Lord’s Supper so that participation in his body occurs? Calvin admitted that this is a mystery, then added, “Even though it seems unbelievable that Christ’s flesh, separated from us by such great distance, penetrates to us, so that it becomes our food, let us remember how far the secret power of the Holy Spirit towers above all our senses, and how foolish it is to wish to measure his immeasurableness by our measure. What, then, our mind does not comprehend, let faith conceive: The Spirit truly unites things separated in space.”[103] Yet, agreeing with Luther’s view about God’s right hand, Calvin underscored that Christ, because he sits at the right hand of the Father, reigns everywhere. Thus, he can be powerfully present to give his body and blood in his Supper.[104] Indeed, communion with Christ takes place when we “soar up to heaven” to be with Christ through the power of the Spirit.[105] Calvin also expressed this communion in terms of descent: “We say Christ descends to us both by the outward symbol and by his Spirit, that he may truly quicken our souls by the substance of his flesh and of his blood.”[106] Whether by ascent or descent, such communion with the body and blood of Christ is both a miracle and a mystery: “It is a secret too lofty for either my mind to comprehend or my words to declare. And, to speak more plainly, I rather experience than understand it.”[107]

As for the benefits of the Lord’s Supper, Calvin emphasized the spiritual nourishment that comes to believers on the basis of the spiritual presence of Christ: “By truly partaking of him, his life passes into us and is made ours—just as bread when taken as food imparts vigor to the body.”[108] In addition to serving the faith of believers, the sacraments attest to their faith. But Calvin specifically distanced himself from this view—the one held by Zwingli—by underscoring that this attestation of faith is a secondary purpose of the sacraments, not the primary end of bolstering faith.[109] This spiritual presence view became Calvin’s contribution to the controversies regarding the Lord’s Supper at the time of the Reformation.[110]

Anabaptist and Baptist Views[111]

Though certainly not as noteworthy as Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin in this Reformation development of understandings of the Lord’s Supper, the Anabaptists contributed yet another view. The third of seven articles that compose the Schleitheim Confession (1527) addressed “the breaking of bread” and underscored the element of commemoration: “All those who wish to break one bread in remembrance of the broken body of Christ, and all who wish to drink of one drink as a remembrance of the shed blood of Christ, will be united beforehand by baptism in one body of Christ, which is the church of God and whose Head is Christ.”[112] Because the Confession condemned every other church as “an abomination that we should shun and flee from,”[113] it sought to expose what it viewed as the illegitimacy of all other observances of the Lord’s Supper: “Whoever has not been called by one God to one faith, to one baptism, to one Spirit, to one body, with all the children of God’s church, cannot be made [into] one bread with them, as indeed must be done if one is truly to break bread according to the command of Christ.”[114] Only the Anabaptists, so they claimed, observed a true “breaking of bread.” Eventually, all the Reformers denounced the Anabaptists’ belief about the Lord’s Supper.

Less than a century later, an important development in the post-Reformation period was the advent of the Baptists.[115] Their view of the Lord’s Supper was expressed by Thomas Helwys: “The Lord’s Supper is the outward manifestation of the spiritual communion between Christ and the faithful mutually (1 Cor. 10:16–17) to declare his death until he comes (1 Cor. 11:26).”[116] This observance should be part of every worship service; thus, the Lord’s Supper should be administered every Sunday.[117]

Increasingly, Baptists engaged in the practice of “closed communion,” restricting participation in the ordinance to those who had been baptized by immersion following a profession of faith.[118] Isaac Backus described this practice:

Truth so clearly requires baptism before the [Lord’s] Supper that paedobaptists never come to the table with any but such as are baptized in their esteem. Neither could we understandingly act in being buried in baptism until we were convinced that what was done to us in infancy was not gospel baptism. Therefore, to commune at the Lord’s table with any who were only sprinkled in infancy is departing from truth by practically saying that they are baptized when we do not believe that they are.[119]

Baptist churches that did not observe closed communion, but permitted participation at the Lord’s Supper to all those who professed faith in Jesus Christ, established their own denomination that would later be called the Free Will Baptists. Later, churches that embraced the isolationist movement named Landmarkism restricted participation to their own members only. Other Baptist churches disagreed with this view.[120]

While the memorial view is generally associated with the Baptist understanding of this ordinance, not all Baptists have held to the Lord’s Supper as solely a symbolic act. Indeed, the Second London Confession of Faith (1677/1688), borrowing nearly word for word from the Westminster Confession of Faith, articulated this view of the ordinance:

Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible Elements in this Ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally, and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified and all the benefits of his death: the Body and Blood of Christ, being then not corporally or carnally but spiritually, present to the faith of Believers, in that ordinance, as the Elements themselves are to their outward senses.[121]

This understanding of the Lord’s Supper was the spiritual presence view of John Calvin and was embraced by many Baptists. Indeed, it was not until the end of the eighteenth century that the memorial view became predominant in Baptist churches. Dissenting from the view that Christ is present spiritually in the celebration were Baptists such as Abraham Booth, John Fawcett, and John Sutcliff. The latter focused on the notion of remembrance in Christ’s words (Luke 22:19), concluding: “Seen through the lens of this text, the Lord’s Supper is a standing memorial of Christ. When you see the table spread and are about to partake of the bread and wine, think you hear Christ saying, ‘Remember me.’ Remember who he is. . . . Again: Remember what he has done. . . . Once more: Remember where he is, and what he is doing.”[122] The fact that Christ instructed us to remember him, Sutcliff averred, means that the Lord’s Supper is a “memorial of the absent Saviour.”[123] As Baptist theologian Millard Erickson chided, “Out of a zeal to avoid the conception that Jesus is present in some sort of magical way, some have sometimes gone to such extremes as to give the impression that the one place where Jesus most assuredly is not to be found is the Lord’s Supper. . . . [This is] the ‘doctrine of the real absence’ of Jesus Christ.”[124]

In contemporary churches, all of the above perspectives on the Lord’s Supper—Catholic transubstantiation, Lutheran consubstantiation, Zwinglian memorial view, Calvin’s spiritual presence view, and (Ana)baptistic views—continue to be expressed as this sacrament or ordinance is celebrated.[125] Leaving this sketch of the development of these five principal views, I turn now to a consideration of biblical affirmations and theological issues with respect to the Lord’s Supper.

BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

The Institution by Jesus Christ

According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper as part of his Last Supper, the final celebration of the Passover with the twelve disciples before his passion and death. According to Matthew’s account,

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Matt. 26:26–29; par. Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:14–23)

As I. Howard Marshall points out with regard to these three institution narratives, “It is important to remember that these accounts describe the Last Supper; they are therefore not direct witnesses for the procedure followed at the Lord’s Supper, although the way in which the last meal of Jesus is described may well have been influenced by the use of the narrative to provide a pattern for the church to follow.”[126] This Last Supper is so named because it was the final Passover meal that Jesus celebrated with his disciples. Following specific prophetic instructions from Jesus to Peter and John about where those two were to prepare the Passover, Jesus and the twelve disciples settled into an upper room and began the meal (Matt. 26:17–19; Mark 14:12–16; Luke 22:7–13).[127]

This Passover celebration, though starting out like all of the innumerable observances over the course of many centuries preceding it, was to be different (the following discussion relies on Matthew’s institutional narrative; Matt. 26:26–29). Standard procedure called for the leader of the Passover to express thanksgiving for the unleavened bread and the cup of wine (which was the third of four cups) before distributing them to the participants. Jesus presumably uttered the traditional thanksgiving: “Blessed are you, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who brings forth bread from the earth.” He then broke the bread and distributed it to his disciples. To this traditional action, Jesus appended a startling statement: “Take, eat; this is my body.” In so doing, Jesus changed the meal he and his disciples were eating, from a remembrance of the hasty departure of the people of Israel at the outset of their miraculous liberation from affliction in Egypt (Ex. 12:17; Deut. 16:3), to an anticipation of his sacrificial death on the cross of Calvary for the sins of the world.[128]

Following tradition, Jesus next took the cup (the third cup, associated with redemption) and gave thanks.[129] Again, to this customary action, Jesus appended a startling statement: “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” In so doing, Jesus signaled the end of the Mosaic covenant and anticipated the establishment of the new covenant.[130] Indeed, the change Jesus introduced to the Passover celebration must be considered a “‘negative sign’ of discontinuity,” signaling the obsolescence of the former covenant between God and his people.[131] The old covenant had been ratified by blood (Ex. 24:6–8). So, too, would the new covenant be ratified by blood, but not by the blood of bulls, sheep, and goats, but by Jesus’ own blood. He would offer himself as the sacrificial Passover lamb. Through a violent death, he would pour out his blood, not for the passing over of sins, but for the forgiveness of sins (Rom. 3:25–26). This death would be accomplished “for many”; “not exclusive (‘many but not all’) but . . . inclusive (‘the totality, consisting of many’).”[132] It would be a vicarious death, taking the place of the death sinners owe. While the actual establishment of this new covenant awaited the death of Jesus that was forthcoming, he provided a vivid, tangible expression of it at the Last Supper by giving the cup to his disciples and urging them all to drink of it. Jesus’ solemn final oath—“I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom”—indicated two things: Jesus anticipated departing from his disciples for “a sustained absence,”[133] and he expected to engage in this celebration—the messianic banquet—with them once again at the time of the coming of the kingdom of God. Thus, a strong eschatological atmosphere pervaded the Last Supper, which was also the culmination of the prophetic hope of the people of God.

The other institution narratives, in Mark and Luke, add two important details to this Matthean presentation. The vicarious nature of Jesus’ sacrificial death is underscored in Luke’s account of Jesus’ words as he broke and distributed the bread: “This is my body, which is given for you” (Luke 22:19).[134] Jesus also indicates clearly that what he was instituting was intended to be an ongoing rite: “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19).[135]

What was Jesus instituting as he gathered together with his disciples at the Last Supper celebration of the Passover? The church refers to this as the Lord’s Supper. This is not the same thing as the Jewish Passover; though instituted in the midst of a Passover celebration, the Lord’s Supper went stunningly beyond the Passover.[136] Correlatively, the Lord’s Supper is not the same thing as the Last Supper.[137] Rather, the Lord’s Supper as instituted by Jesus is an ongoing rite that the church is to observe between his first and second comings and in anticipation of his return. This celebration involves symbolic elements—bread that is broken, a cup of wine, and the distribution of both elements to the church. These actions vividly portray the broken body of Christ and the poured-out blood of Christ—his vicarious sacrifice on behalf of sinners through which they experience the forgiveness of sins—and the church’s appropriation of Christ’s salvific work. The church observes the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross of Calvary and of his blood that ratified the church’s new covenant relationship with God.

The Pauline Tradition

Only one other New Testament writing—1 Corinthians—treats this ordinance in detail, as the apostle Paul, in the midst of his diatribe against the church of Corinth’s abuse of the Lord’s Supper, explains the tradition he received concerning its practice. Before he addresses this matter specifically, he discusses the Lord’s Supper in the context of a warning against idolatry directed toward the Corinthians.[138] I will look first at this discussion, then turn to the Pauline tradition of the Lord’s Supper.

Paul confronts a dreadful problem in the church of Corinth and issues a dire warning:

Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice, they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? (1 Cor. 10:14–22)

Paul’s concern in this section of his letter is to warn the church of Corinth not to succumb to idolatry. Unlike the divinely blessed yet rebellious Israelites of old—whose sin, judgment, and destruction, recorded in Old Testament Scripture, serve as cautionary examples for Christ-followers (1 Cor. 10:1–11)—the Corinthians are to have a different end.[139] Paul’s specific admonition (10:12–14) may be read as a reference—a warning and a promise—to isolated incidents of temptation and victory in the lives of individual Christians.[140] The passage has a more specific reference to apostasy and preservation from it. Specifically, Paul affirms the divine promise that Christ-followers will never commit apostasy so as ultimately to fall away from the faith and lose their salvation.[141]

Paul’s specific command to “flee from idolatry” is directed at a manifest problem in the church of Corinth: the Corinthians are engaged in idolatry through their practice of attending dinner feasts in the pagan temples of Corinth. This practice involved demons and consequently resulted in spiritual pollution and entrapment. Though the Corinthians had come out of idol worship (1 Cor. 6:9), their frequenting of temple banquets was a temptation to fall back into idolatry and thus to fall away from Christ.[142] Employing the dreadful example of the Israelites who had departed from the Lord and were consequently doomed, Paul warns the Corinthian Christians not to continue in their idolatrous practice lest they commit apostasy as those before them did.

In addressing the Corinthian idolatry, Paul parallels three events: what takes place in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper by the church, what took place in ancient Israel when members of the community made their peace offerings (Leviticus 3; 7:15), and what takes place when pagans offer food and drink to idols at their banquets (table 11.1):

TABLE 11.1 Parallels in Three Events

The Lord’s Supper

The Israelite altar

Pagan banquets

cup: participation in the blood of Christ

drink offered to idols/cup of demons: participation with demons

eat sacrifices: participation in the altar

bread: participation in the body of Christ

food offered to idols/table of demons: participation with demons

The operative word linking these three activities is κοινωνία (koinōnia), rendered “participation” (or, in the noun form, “participants”). Through their eating of the sacrifices, the people of Israel were “participants in the altar” (1 Cor. 10:18). Through their eating of the food sacrificed to idols and their imbibing of the drink sacrificed to idols, pagans are participants with demons, because “what pagans sacrifice, they offer to demons and not to God” (v. 20). Through their blessing of the cup of blessing and their breaking of the bread, Christians participate in the blood and the body of Christ (vv. 15–16). The notion of participation links these three activities.

The specific application Paul draws is that, morally speaking, the Corinthians cannot participate in both the Lord’s Supper and pagan banquets (1 Cor. 10:21). The Christian ordinance is about the Lord; pagan sacrifices are directed toward demons. The mixture of the two is lethal idolatry that will provoke divine jealousy (v. 22). Persistent pursuit of their current idolatrous course of action will result in absolute disaster for the Corinthians, so they are to cease and desist.

The applications that Paul makes both explicitly and implicitly are of great importance for our understanding of the Lord’s Supper. He explicitly notes two incorrect implications of his discussion: the special status of idol food, and the reality of idols (1 Cor. 10:19).[143] Then he underscores a proper implication: “I imply that what pagans sacrifice, they offer to demons and not to God” (v. 20). Though the food offered to idols is nothing and the idols themselves are nothing, the pagan practice of sacrificing to idols associates those pagan offerers with demons, who are something and are present in pagan banquets.[144] The implication for the Lord’s Supper—and the specific point Paul makes—is that it is a participation in the blood and body of Jesus Christ (vv. 16–17). This must be so because Christ and all of the salvific benefits associated with his sacrificial death—underscored in the affirmation of participation in his blood and body—are present in celebrations of the Lord’s Supper.[145] More will be said about this point in the application section of this chapter.

Paul draws out another important implication: “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17). The Lord’s Supper, which is observed with one loaf of bread that is broken and then eaten by all, unites the many members of the church as one body.[146] Discussion of this unity—or, better, disruptions to this unity through abuse of the Lord’s Supper—becomes Paul’s focus in the next part of his letter (11:17–34).

In the midst of his diatribe against abuses of the Lord’s Supper in the church of Corinth, Paul recounts the tradition of the ordinance that he had received:

But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. (1 Cor. 11:17–22)

In the church of Corinth, as in others of the earliest churches (e.g., Jude 12), the Lord’s Supper was celebrated as part of an agape, or love, feast. When the Corinthian Christians would gather together,[147] those members who had the means to do so would bring significant portions of food and wine, servings not only for themselves but for others as well. The other participants who would benefit from this largesse were poorer Christ-followers. Because of the wealth differential, it could have been the case that the well-to-do members of the congregation would arrive first while the poorer members would have to work long hours and thus could not arrive until later. Apparently, given this situation, many of the richer Christians would not wait for the arrival of their poorer brothers and sisters but would charge ahead with the feasting, heaping up large portions of the food and pouring large quantities of the wine. Their consumption of both food and drink was so great that they would become gluttonous and drunk. By the time that the poorer Corinthians would arrive, they would find no food and drink left; thus, they would go away hungry and thirsty. Paul’s significant lesson to them in pointing out this evil situation was that by their misconduct at the agape meal, the wealthier Corinthians were celebrating their supper, not the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:20). Indeed, their bad behavior demonstrated contempt for the church and humiliated its poorer members. This division between rich and poor—symptomatic of the church’s factionalism that Paul had already denounced—was not the way it was supposed to be.

The means by which Paul sought to rectify this desperate situation was to recount the tradition of the Lord’s Supper of which he—and, through him, the Corinthians—were aware:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. (1 Cor. 11:23–26)

Luke’s account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper is the closest parallel to Paul’s tradition.[148] Paul does not draw attention to the fact that the institution of the Lord’s Supper occurred at the Passover; rather, he situates it “on the night when he [Jesus] was betrayed,” a clear reference to the diabolical action of Judas recounted immediately prior to Luke’s institution narrative (Luke 22:3–6) and at its conclusion (vv. 21–23).[149] This atmosphere of betrayal stands in amazing contrast with the action of Jesus to initiate the Lord’s Supper by giving thanks. Jesus linked the bread that he broke with his body that is for the disciples—a strong sense of substitution is present—and charged them with the responsibility to carry out this same action of breaking the bread as a commemoration of him. Following the Last Supper meal, Jesus took the cup and announced the link between it and the new covenant in his blood; now, a strong sense of death and sacrifice for the inauguration of a new structure in the disciples’ relationship with God is present. In parallel with his instructions about breaking the bread, Jesus charged his disciples with the responsibility to engage in this action of drinking the cup in remembrance of him; this would occur “as often” as they do so.[150] Finally, Paul explains that as often as the disciples break the bread and drink the cup, their actions are a visual proclamation of the Lord’s death until he returns again.

This Pauline tradition has an important ramification for the manner in which the church of Corinth is to celebrate the Lord’s Supper:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another—if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. (1 Cor. 11:27–34)

Alluding to what he had said earlier, Paul emphasizes that it is the Lord’s Supper, not the Corinthians’ supper, which is to be observed. To continue to engage in this observance as the church was engaging in it—“in an unworthy manner”—brings Jesus Christ’s judgment on those participants: they will be “guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” To profane something is to regard and use something that has special spiritual significance as something that is merely common. The Lord’s Supper is clearly not a common practice, but is instead a sacred observance; accordingly, the church must engage in it in a worthy manner.

The potential liability that comes from an unworthy manner of participation can be avoided, however, by personal examination. This self-examination is not to detect the presence of personal unconfessed sin, nor is it to ascertain one’s worthiness to participate in the Lord’s Supper. The aim of the self-assessment is to ensure that one participates in the ordinance in a worthy manner, and it requires that one discern the body—the body of Christ. This body, the church, is to be united, and so any observance of the Lord’s Supper that is characterized by divisiveness is precluded—and denounced. The fact of the matter is that many of the Corinthian church members were weak and ill, and some of them had even prematurely died, as a result of their unworthy participation in the Lord’s Supper. This situation is an indication of the Lord’s disgust with and discipline of the church’s wrongful observance. It was an act of divine discipline intended to rebuke and correct the church—that is, to expose its unworthy manner of participation and prompt a worthy manner of observing the Lord’s Supper. Indeed, Paul indicates specifically what the proper manner of celebration looks like: those who have means to do so should bring the food and wine and postpone their feast until everyone—specifically, the poorer members—are present. If the rich are overly hungry and cannot wait for the dinner to commence at the proper time, they should eat at their own homes before coming together with the church. By so doing, they will escape the divine judgment the church is now experiencing.

In summary, Jesus’ institution of the Lord’s Supper at his Last Supper (Matt. 26:26–29; par. Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:14–23), together with Paul’s discussion of the Corinthian problem with idolatry (1 Cor. 10:14–22) and his recounting of the Lord’s institution of the Supper amid his diatribe against the church’s abuse of it (11:17–34), constitute the extent of the biblical teaching on this ordinance. Essential elements of this celebration are underscored in these passages and include an emphasis on Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross for the sins of the world; the establishment of a new covenant between God and his people, the church; the anticipation of an eschatological re-feasting with a triumphantly returned Messiah; a remembrance and proclamation of his death; a participation in Christ and all of his salvific benefits; and an expression of unity between brothers and sisters in the Lord, who eschew divisions between themselves.

MY PERSPECTIVE AND MATTERS OF APPLICATION

I have presented the historical development and the five principal views of the Lord’s Supper and have focused on the few biblical passages that address this ordinance. I will now offer my own perspective and address some important matters of application for the church’s administration of the Lord’s Supper.

The Nature of the Lord’s Supper

The Lord’s Supper is an ongoing rite, one of two ordinances instituted by Jesus Christ, which the church is to observe between his first and second comings and in anticipation of his return. This celebration involves symbolic elements—bread that is broken, a cup of wine (or grape juice), and the distribution of both elements to the church. These actions vividly portray the broken body and the poured-out blood of Christ—his vicarious sacrifice on behalf of sinners through which they experience the forgiveness of sins—and the church’s appropriation of Christ’s salvific work.[151] Indeed, it is a visual proclamation of the gospel’s message of his atoning sacrifice. The church observes the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross of Calvary, and of Jesus’ blood that ratified the church’s new covenant relationship with God. More than mere remembrance, however, this ordinance is a participation in the body and blood of Jesus Christ; that is, as the church celebrates the Lord’s Supper, Christ and all of the salvific benefits associated with his sacrificial death are present. The church is further benefited as the ordinance both portrays and nurtures the unity of the body of Christ. Consequently, the observance of the Lord’s Supper is to be preceded by self-examination to ensure that those who intend to participate do so in a worthy manner; that is, with love and out of deference to others and without hint of divisiveness.

Included in this understanding is an ontological claim about Christ’s presence in observances of the Lord’s Supper, a presence that is neither mysterious nor magical but is grounded on the divine attribute of omnipresence. Theologically, divine omnipresence as ontological presence means that “God is present in the totality of his being at each point of space.”[152] Additionally, divine omnipresence as spiritual or moral presence means that God is present in different ways at different times and places to bless his obedient people and judge those who are against him. Applying this discussion, my claim embraces both the ontological presence of Christ in observances of the Lord’s Supper, as well as the particular manifestation of his covenantal presence (1) to bless proper celebrations of the new covenant ordinance of the Lord’s Supper and (2) to judge improper celebrations of it (as exemplified in the Lord’s retribution against the divided Corinthians; 1 Cor. 11:29–31). As Christ promised his spiritual presence to accompany his church as it carries out the Great Commission (Matt. 28:20) and as it engages in church discipline (Matt. 18:20), so too the Savior and all of the salvific benefits associated with his sacrificial death are present in celebrations of the Lord’s Supper. As great blessing for his people who observe the ordinance in a worthy manner, the benefits of Christ’s presence include the following: the reenactment of gospel rescue—his broken body, his shed blood—confronts the still-sinful members of the church who eat the bread and drink of the cup; thus, an awareness or conviction of sin is relieved through the saving grace of Christ. Indeed, members are “participants in the effect of his [Christ’s] personal history—communicants in the history of his personal effects,”[153] specifically his saving work. Additionally, a uniting with Christ and bonding with fellow Christians takes place through joint participation in the celebration. This nurturing of the gospel and community in turn promotes and furthers sanctification, or maturing in faith and obedience.

This position does not promote transubstantiation, the Catholic doctrine (discussed above) that the bread and the wine become the actual physical body and blood of Jesus Christ. The language employed in 1 Corinthians 10:14–22 is about participation, not identification: Christians participate in the blood and body of Jesus Christ, but there is no hint here that the cup and the bread are actually transformed into the blood and body of Christ. Indeed, Paul does not say that the cup of blessing that Christians bless is the blood of Christ; rather, he indicates that the cup of blessing is a participation in the blood of Christ. Similarly, he does not say that the bread that Christians break is the body of Christ; rather, he indicates that it is a participation in the body of Christ. The Catholic idea of transubstantiation does not receive support from this passage. Additionally, in the institutional narrative of the Lord’s Supper, when Jesus says, “This is my body,” “is” cannot be “is” in terms of an identity statement, because the bread that he broke and his body were not one and the same thing, and the narrative gives no evidence that Jesus performed a miracle. I further echo the objections of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin (discussed above) to transubstantiation.

Moreover, this understanding does not view the Lord’s Supper as a sacrifice, as does the Catholic Church. Certainly, Paul uses sacrificial language (1 Cor. 10:14–22); but Christians do not eat or offer a sacrifice, because the sacrifice has already been made: “Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed” (5:7). It was the blood of Christ that was shed; it was the body of Christ that was broken. Celebrating the Lord’s Supper through blessing the cup and breaking the bread renders Christians participants in Christ and all of the salvific benefits of his sacrificial death, but it is not itself a sacrifice. The Catholic doctrine of the mass as a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Christ does not receive support from this passage. Additionally, while the atemporality of God may be embraced as one understanding of his eternality, its application to Christ’s death two thousand years ago (the Catholic belief that the atemporality of his death makes it possible for it to be re-presented in the eucharistic celebrations) is misconstrued.

Additionally, my position is not consubstantiation, which errs in its literal interpretation of Jesus’ words of institution (“This is my body”) and wrongly attributes ubiquity to his human nature. Physically, the glorified Lord is seated at the right hand of the Father; as the ascended one, he is not present here in his human nature, and he will remain “absent” from the earth until his second advent.[154] Consequently, consubstantiation cannot be a correct position.

Rather, from my perspective, the God-man Jesus Christ, who reigns from heaven, is ontologically present everywhere and spiritually present either to bless or to judge the church’s celebration of his new covenant ordinance of the Supper. And where this covenantal presence is, so is Christ’s sacrificial work and its manifold benefits. Specifically, Jesus Christ as the once-humiliated-and-crucified-but-now-resurrected-and-ascended God-man, the exalted Lord foreknown from the foundation of the world as the Lamb who would be slain (1 Pet. 1:20)—it is this person, marked forever by his one act of giving his body to be broken for our sins and the shedding of his blood for the forgiveness of our sins, who is present with all his salvific benefits to his church in its celebration of the Lord’s Supper.[155]

At the same time, this perspective goes beyond the important memorial view of the Lord’s Supper. There is more to this ordinance than mere remembrance of Christ and his many benefits for salvation. Participation goes beyond remembering. As the Israelites brought their offerings, they did more than just remember what Jehovah had done for them; they offered their sacrifice to the Lord. Likewise, as pagans offer food and drink at their banquets, they do more than just remember what their idols have done for them; they offer their sacrifices to demons. Similarly, as Christians celebrate the Lord’s Supper through blessing the cup and breaking the bread, they participate in Jesus Christ; they share in “the cup of the Lord” and in “the table of the Lord,” in contrast with pagans who partake of “the cup of demons” and of “the table of demons.” Mixing these two activities is lethally idolatrous because of the presence of demons in the case of pagan banquets, and the presence of Christ in the case of the Lord’s Supper. The jealous Lord, who is present in the ordinance, will not tolerate his people engaging in pagan rites in which are present his archenemies, the demons. The memorial view, while certainly not wrong (indeed, a commemorative aspect is clearly set forth in these passages), is inadequate.

Regular Observance with Biblically Prescribed Elements

The Lord’s Supper should be a regular part of the church’s worship. As Moltmann urges, “The fellowship of the table must be central for the assembled congregation, just as much as the proclamation of the gospel. The Lord’s Supper must be integrated into the service of worship. It must no longer be celebrated as a coda to it.”[156] Just how regular and integrated its celebration is to be has been and continues to be a matter of debate in some Protestant churches.

In one sense, Paul’s point about “as often” as the church administers the ordinance (1 Cor. 11:26) leaves the matter of frequency to the church’s discretion. At one extreme, the church does not have the option of deciding it will never observe this ordinance, because Jesus commanded that the church celebrate the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of him.[157] At the other extreme, the church must repudiate the idea that its members may administer the ordinance privately to themselves every day.[158] As Dagg noted,

The rite was designed to be social. . . . It could not serve as a token of fellowship between the disciples of Christ, if it were performed in solitude. To perpetuate a social rite, society is necessary; and the disciples of Christ, by his authority, organize the societies, called churches. As these are the only divinely instituted Christian societies, we might judge beforehand, that the supper would be committed to these, for its observance and perpetuation. This we find to be true. . . . The rite should be celebrated by the church, in public assembly.”[159]

With these two extremes ruled out, with what regularity should the church observe the Lord’s Supper? Because of what it does—the Supper proclaims the gospel message of Christ’s death, fosters remembrance of Christ’s vicarious sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, signals the new covenant relationship with God, benefits Christians as they participate in the body and blood of Christ through the presence of Christ and his salvific work, and portrays and stimulates unity in the church—it warrants very frequent observance. Certainly, the early church’s weekly observance, continued in many churches today, provides a fine historical precedent. I concur with Ben Witherington: the expectation is “that whenever the whole body comes together, there should be a Lord’s Supper as part of the act of worship.”[160]

As for those churches that administer the Lord’s Supper less than weekly—monthly, quarterly, yearly—let me encourage consideration of more frequent observance. Several reasons are offered by such churches for their current schedules of observance. For some, historical precedent is determinative. For example, John Calvin urged frequent celebration of the Lord’s Supper in the churches. In his proposal to the Council of Ministers in Geneva, he believed weekly observance to be right, but asked for monthly administration of the sacrament. The Council did not go along with his proposal; rather, observance was ordered to be quarterly.[161] Current Reformed churches removed from such state control could return to their founder’s original vision. Another reason commonly offered is that overfamiliarity breeds contempt and fosters meaningless, ritualistic repetition. However, if such reasoning were applied to other aspects of the worship service—e.g., praying, singing, preaching—what elements would remain? The length of many contemporary worship services is another reason often given for less frequent celebrations; in these churches there simply is not enough time for weekly observance. A final reason given for infrequent observance is that one’s church or denominational tradition dictates a monthly, quarterly, or yearly celebration. My encouragement is for churches with less than weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper to take a careful look at these reasons to see if they can be addressed, with the result that these churches engage in a more frequent administration of the Lord’s Supper.[162]

With the expansion of the church into lands outside of the Middle Eastern, Mediterranean, and European areas in which Christianity has traditionally flourished, an impetus to adopt elements other than bread and wine (or grape juice) has called into question the proper means with which to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Rice cakes, tea, saki, and other local food and drink have been proposed as substitutes for the traditional elements “to make the worshippers feel ‘at home’ in the liturgy and to demonstrate the relevance of Christianity to everyday life in its local forms.”[163] Geoffrey Wainwright presents several arguments in favor of “the retention of bread and wine,” two of which are very strong: “the bread and wine keep clear the original reference to Jesus Christ, whom the New Testament presents as instituting the sacrament with these elements”; and “the almost universal use of bread and wine in the Church up to now contributes a precious ecclesial bond in space and time.”[164] Assessing these arguments, I am most convinced by the first: bread and wine are the dominically and biblically prescribed elements and must therefore be retained in the church’s observance of this ordinance. I am also strongly swayed by the second argument: the contemporary church shares the rich legacy handed down to it from the church of the past and stands in strong continuity with it by using traditional elements.[165]

Participants in the Lord’s Supper

For most of the church’s history, participation in the Lord’s Supper was restricted in some way: to baptized Christians (the historical position of the church, as noted above), to parishioners who have received the sacrament of reconciliation following awareness of mortal sin (the traditional Catholic position),[166] to members of the church that is administering the ordinance, and the like. At times, historically, advocates of including unbelievers in the administration of the Lord’s Supper have promoted their position (e.g., Solomon Stoddard viewed communion as a “converting ordinance”).[167] Today, the decision is often left up to the conscience of those in attendance, resulting in believers and unbelievers alike participating. Consequently, churches differ on the issue of who may participate in this ordinance.

I am an advocate of a position that is often referred to as close communion; that is, participation in the Lord’s Supper should be reserved for baptized members in good standing in their respective churches. This view contrasts with both closed communion and open communion, which positions I will first discuss before explaining and supporting close communion.[168]

According to the view called closed communion, the Lord’s Supper should be restricted to baptized members in good standing of a particular church. Because it is a local church ordinance—thus each local church is responsible for administering the Lord’s Supper properly and only to those who can and should rightly participate—its celebration should be reserved for the baptized members in good standing of the local church that administers it. The application of this view means that non-Christians, unbaptized Christians, and baptized members in good standing of any and all churches other than the particular local church, are excluded from participation in the Lord’s Supper.

The strongest arguments in support of closed communion are the following: as for the necessity that participants be baptized, six arguments may be set forth. One argument is that Jesus first instituted baptism; then he instituted the Lord’s Supper. The evidence for this argument is that Jesus engaged in baptizing his followers (or having them baptized) from the beginning of his three-year ministry (John 4:1–2), but he instituted the Lord’s Supper only at the end of his ministry (Matt. 26:26–29). Accordingly, the church should follow his order of institution. A second argument points to the order of Jesus’ instructions in his Great Commission (Matt. 28:18–20): as the church is engaged in sharing the gospel and making disciples, the fruit of their efforts—new disciples—are to be baptized. As Dagg explains, if the “sovereign Lord commanded that believers should be baptized—baptized immediately after they made a profession of faith—then He must intend that the administration of baptism should be prior to a reception of the Lord’s Supper; and consequently, tacitly prohibits every unbaptized person having communion at His table.”[169]

A third argument for insisting that only baptized Christians should partake of the Lord’s Supper is the order of events in the application of salvation, as set forth in Acts 2:38–42: those in the audience first heard Peter preach the gospel (vv. 14–37), next they repented, then they were baptized, were forgiven of their sins, and received the Holy Spirit, and finally they were added to the church, where “they devoted themselves to . . . the breaking of bread . . .” (v. 42).[170] Thus, the earliest Christians were first baptized and then they participated in the Lord’s Supper. A fourth argument draws attention to the fact that this last-mentioned order—first baptism, then the Lord’s Supper—has been the practice of the church throughout its long history.[171] With very few exceptions, the church has always insisted on the order of baptism followed by the Lord’s Supper.

A fifth argument in support of restricting the Lord’s Supper to baptized Christians focuses on the nature and meaning of the two ordinances. Baptism is the initiatory rite of the Christian church; it is to be administered to those who are just beginning their life in Jesus Christ. The Lord’s Supper, by contrast, is the continuing rite of the Christian church; it is to be administered regularly to those who are following Jesus Christ. Unless one has participated in the initiatory rite of baptism, one cannot participate in the ongoing rite of the Lord’s Supper.[172] A sixth and final argument is that those who participate in the Lord’s Supper should be obedient followers of Christ, and one of the most clear and important steps of obedience for Christians is their submission to baptism.

As for the necessity that participants be members in good standing of the particular local church that administers the ordinance, the key argument offered is that the only way for a church to ensure with a high degree of certainty that those who participate in the Lord’s Supper are genuine Christians who have been baptized and are members in good standing is to restrict participation to the actual members of that church. To allow visitors to observe the Lord’s Supper is potentially to allow participation by non-Christians, unbaptized Christians, and excommunicated members of other churches. This situation would be dangerous for both those people and the local church that allows them to participate, because it shares in the guilt of their unworthy participation and thereby courts the displeasure and discipline of Jesus Christ.[173]

According to the open communion perspective, the Lord’s Supper should be served (open) to all genuine Christians; “all pious persons, baptized or unbaptized, have a right to the Lord’s supper.”[174] The application of this view means that a church about to administer the ordinance invites (or tacitly allows) all Christians present in the assembly to participate, whether or not they have been baptized, whether or not they are members of the church serving the Lord’s Supper, and (possibly) whether or not they are members in good standing in their respective churches.

The strongest arguments in support of open communion are the following (all of these focus on the lack of requirement of baptism before Christians may be allowed to participate in the Lord’s Supper): one argument is that “nothing is a pre-requisite to communion which is not essential to salvation.”[175] Because baptism is not necessary for salvation, non-baptized Christians may participate in the Lord’s Supper. A second argument underscores that exclusion of non-baptized Christians from the Lord’s Supper does not stop there; indeed, “it excludes them from every species of instruction appropriate to Christians.”[176] This argument attacks the reasoning for closed communion that relies on the order of Jesus’ instructions in his Great Commission (Matt. 28:18–20). If Jesus intended to set forth a strict and sequential order—first share the gospel and make disciples, then (and only then) baptize those new converts, and then (and only then) teach them everything that Jesus instructed—then it follows that the church is not allowed to instruct unbaptized Christians. As this notion is patently absurd, it must mean that the closed communion view of the necessity of baptism for participation in the Lord’s Supper is wrong.

A third argument in support of open communion compares and contrasts the rules for Jewish circumcision in relation to the Passover participation (the old covenant rites) with the rules for Christian baptism in relation to the Lord’s Supper (the new covenant rites): “The Jewish law was so clear and express, in insisting on circumcision as a necessary preparation for partaking of the paschal lamb, that none could mistake it. . . . We affirm that in no part of Scripture is it [baptism] inculcated as a preparation for the Lord’s Supper.”[177] A fourth reason is that “when duties are enjoined in a certain series, each of them, on the authority in which they originate, becomes obligatory; nor are we excused from performing those which stand later in the series, on account of our having, from misconception of the meaning, or from any other cause, omitted the first.”[178] The point of this reason is that both baptism and the Lord’s Supper, as ordinances commanded by Christ, are obligations that all Christ-followers must obey. While it is true that Christ first instituted baptism and then the Lord’s Supper—thus establishing an ordinary sequence that Christians should first be baptized and then participate in the Lord’s Supper—the church cannot use the lack of baptism to prevent unbaptized Christians from observing the Lord’s Supper. They must be allowed to obey Christ’s command to participate in the Lord’s Supper.

A fifth and final reason for allowing an unbaptized Christian to celebrate the Lord’s Supper is that “the person’s nonparticipation symbolizes that he or she is not a member of the body of Christ which is coming together to observe the Lord’s Supper in a unified fellowship.” In this case, “churches may think it best to allow non-baptized believers to participate in the Lord’s Supper but to urge them to be baptized as soon as possible.”[179] Thus, “an inversion of the proper order of the sacraments may be tolerated in those who are not properly enlightened on the subject.”[180]

As for countering the danger that the open communion stance may potentially permit non-Christians and excommunicated members of other local churches to participate in the church’s celebration of the ordinance, this position notes that once the church has adequately discharged its responsibility to instruct those present about who is allowed to join in the Lord’s Supper—explicitly saying that only genuine Christians who are members in good standing of their churches may participate—all responsibility for failure to heed these instructions falls on those who do not comply with them (“let a person examine himself”; 1 Cor. 11:28). Thus, those who should not participate but who participate anyway court the displeasure of Jesus Christ, but the church is not held responsible for their evil.[181]

According to the view that I embrace, close communion, participation in the Lord’s Supper should be reserved for baptized members in good standing in their respective churches. In contrast to closed communion, close communion does not insist that all participants must be members of the local church observing the ordinance. In contrast to open communion, close communion insists that those who participate be baptized Christians. The application of this view means that a church about to administer the ordinance invites its own members as well as all Christians present in the assembly who have been baptized following a credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ (conversion) and are members in good standing of their respective churches to participate.

The strongest arguments for close communion are the following: the first argument is the principle that “whatever determines the conditions of membership, defines also the terms of communion.”[182] This principle means that any Christian who meets the requirements of her local church (conversion to Christ, a credible profession of faith, baptism in the name of the triune God, and being in good standing) is eligible to participate in the Lord’s Supper, even if she is not a member of the church administering the ordinance. The second argument, which supports the necessity of baptism before participation in the Lord’s Supper, dovetails with the arguments for closed communion on this baptism requirement (see above).

The third argument, which distances this close communion position from the closed communion position, maintains that something dreadfully wrong and inappropriate is symbolized if baptized members in good standing of any church are prohibited from participating in the Lords’ Supper in a church that is not their own local church. The close communion view acknowledges that the Lord’s Supper (the same is true for baptism) is an ordinance for the local church; that is, its celebration is carried out by the local church, not by some authoritative ecclesial structure above the local church or by a parachurch movement. At the same time, the position does not hold that the Lord’s Supper (or baptism) is an ordinance of the local church, that is, that the celebration pertains only to the local church. As discussed in the last chapter, while baptism is administered by a local church, the baptism performed does not avail in that church only. The baptism is baptism into the body of Christ and thus pertains to all local churches as expressions of that body. Should the baptized believer leave the church in which she was baptized and become a member of another church, she does not need to—indeed, cannot—be rebaptized; her baptism is valid in her new church. Likewise, while the Lord’s Supper is administered by a local church, the celebration observed does not avail in that church only. The Lord’s Supper proclaims the gospel message of Christ’s death, fosters remembrance of Christ’s vicarious sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, signals the new covenant relationship with God, is participation in the body and blood of Christ through the presence of Christ and his salvific work, and portrays and stimulates unity in the church; as such, the Lord’s Supper does this for all Christ-followers. To exclude baptized Christians who are members in good standing in their local church from participating in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in a different church symbolizes that the gospel, the vicarious sacrifice of Christ, the new covenant, participation in Christ, and unity with other Christians do not apply to those excluded people. This false situation cannot be allowed.

The fourth and final argument for close communion addresses the danger that its practice may potentially permit non-Christians and excommunicated members of other local churches to participate in the church’s celebration of the ordinance. This fourth argument dovetails with the argument used by proponents of open communion that explicit instructions concerning who may participate are sufficient to ward off this danger (see above).

In articulating the above three positions and advocating the close communion view, I do not imagine that I will achieve any kind of consensus on the issue of the proper participants in the Lord’s Supper. But I do hope to stimulate discussion in local churches and even among churches about this important matter.

Participation in a Worthy Manner

Paul’s strictures against the Corinthians participating in the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner—and the Lord’s severe discipline upon some in that church because of their abuse of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:27–32)—demand careful attention and application. I believe that this one issue has been a source of much misunderstanding and misappropriation to the great detriment of the church of Jesus Christ, so I hope to bring a bit of clarity to how the church should participate in a worthy manner.

First, it is very important to note what Paul does not exclude: he does not prohibit unworthy participants from observing the Lord’s Supper. My ancestors were guilty of and suffered from this misunderstanding: when their church had prepared the Lord’s Supper, given instructions, and invited those who were worthy to participate, none of my ancestors went forward to celebrate the ordinance—because they considered themselves to be unworthy participants. Even after close scrutiny and introspection to discern and then confess even the most minute sins that might render them impure—following Paul’s instruction about self-examination (1 Cor. 11:28)—my ancestors concluded that they were unworthy participants. And right they were, for who could ever be sufficiently worthy to share in the body and blood of Jesus Christ? If anyone is to be a worthy participant, he must be reckoned worthy through the justification that comes through the work of Christ and faith in him. But if that is the case, then all Christ-followers are indeed worthy to participate. So what is the problem?

The problem is that Paul does not ban unworthy participants from the Lord’s Supper; rather, he bars unworthy participation. The problem in the church of Corinth was one of divisiveness. Rather than “discerning the body” (1 Cor. 11:29)—that is, “the unity and interdependence of people in the church, which is the body of Christ,”[183]—the wealthier Corinthians were disrespectful of their poorer brothers and sisters during the celebration, thus making a mockery of the Lord’s Supper. The factionalism that was rampant in the church manifested itself in the terrible abuse of this celebration. Tragically, some members of the church were weak and ill, and some had even prematurely died. But this divine judgment and disciplinary action was due to their unworthy participation, not because they were unworthy participants.[184]

The common practice in churches today is that immediately before the observance of the Lord’s Supper, the institution narrative is read, instructions are given as to who may participate, and a brief pause for self-examination is provided so that those about to participate may confess their personal sins and make themselves worthy participants. This practice is not what Paul meant when he directed, “Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:28–29). The self-assessment is not for searching out remaining sins; these should be confessed and repented of promptly, not accumulated and dismissed quickly and inconsiderately before sharing in the Lord’s Supper.[185] Rather, the self-examination is specifically for the purpose of detecting broken relationships, division-causing behavior, disrespect, and mistreatment of brothers and sisters in Christ. If self-assessment reveals these problems, the Christian should refrain from participating in the Lord’s Supper and act decisively and promptly to rectify the mistreatment of others and reconcile broken relationships.[186] Churches who encourage their members to prepare for the ordinance ahead of time by acting swiftly to mend divisions do them a great service, for such members may look ahead joyfully and with great anticipation to their worthy participation in the upcoming celebration.

A Symbol of Church Unity

When the church—all its members—observes the ordinance in a worthy manner, the Lord’s Supper symbolizes and fosters the unity of the body of Christ. Though one cannot insist on a return to the ancient practice of observing the Lord’s Supper in the context of an agape feast, such a ressourcement would provide some much needed help. As Witherington notes, celebration of the Lord’s Supper in the context of a larger meal is appropriate because, by this practice, the element of unity and fellowship is emphasized. Even apart from the meal, this community element is emphasized when “a whole loaf not yet broken” is used at the beginning of the celebration, “for the bread is in fact a double symbol, not only of Christ’s own body, but of the church as the body of Christ—a united whole. This is surely what Paul has in mind in 1 Corinthians 10:17. . . . The meal is not meant just to unite us with Christ; it is also meant to unite us with one another.”[187] As Moltmann adds, beyond symbolizing and fostering the unity of one local church, the celebration of the Lord’s Supper testifies to the unity of the universal church: “The common bread and the common cup point to the oneness of the people who partake in the one Christ, and in him with all participants at all times and in all places.”[188]

Because of this whole-body symbolism, I would advocate that administration of the Lord’s Supper should be reserved for times when the entire church can gather together for its celebration. The most likely time for this is the Sunday morning worship service. An implication of my position is that those in sub-groups of the church—home Bible studies, community groups, youth groups, family campouts, women’s and men’s retreats, weddings, and other groups that are intended to be partial gatherings of the church’s membership—should refrain from its observance. I cannot categorically rule out this common practice, and it is a fact that celebrating the Lord’s Supper among specialty groups serves to unite their participants in a wonderful and deep way (I myself am not a stranger to this experience). But if a theology of the Lord’s Supper adequately establishes that the ordinance symbolizes the unity of all the members of the church, then anything less than whole-body participation would seem to obfuscate that which should be clearly and properly symbolized.

A Proleptic Celebration

The eschatological character of the church finds tangible expression in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Both Jesus and Paul expressed this anticipatory nature of the ordinance, with Jesus indicating his promise that he would once again celebrate with his disciples at the coming of the kingdom of God (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:16, 18) and Paul noting that the church through its celebration proclaims the death of Christ until he comes (1 Cor. 11:26). Pannenberg emphasizes this eschatological dimension by pointing to “the center of its [the church’s] liturgical life, the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, which continues Jesus’ practice of table fellowship as an anticipation of human fellowship in the saving future of God’s rule that a banquet symbolizes. Nowhere else in the church’s life does the nature of its whole existence as a sign find such clear expression as here.”[189]

This eschatological depth of the Lord’s Supper needs to find expression in the church’s observance. Practically speaking, this can be accomplished with particular regard to the tenor or atmosphere in which the ordinance is administered: the Lord’s Supper should be a celebration. It is not a funeral, a time to feel sorry for Jesus who died.[190] Neither is it a mere remembrance of Jesus and his death. Furthermore, it is not, as presented above, a time for morbid introspection leading to feelings of remorse over personal sins. Neither is it a celebration of its own good fellowship.[191] Rather, the Lord’s Supper is a proleptic celebration of victory because Jesus, through his sacrificial death that has defeated sin and death, will return to establish the kingdom of God in its fullness. While the atmosphere in which the church administers the Lord’s Supper must be decorous and respectful, it should also express a vibrant celebration of both past and future realities wrought by Jesus Christ. As “a participation in the blood of Christ . . . [and] a participation in the body of Christ” (1 Cor. 10:16)—as a participation in Christ and all of the salvific benefits associated with his sacrificial death—the Lord’s Supper is to be a celebration focused on Christ in anticipation of his victorious return in glory.

___________________

[1]I acknowledge the debate as to whether the expression (with reference to the first Christ-followers) “they devoted themselves . . . to the breaking of bread” (Acts 2:42) refers to the early church’s observance of the Lord’s Supper or to meals enjoyed together by those first Christians. I think a good case can be made for the first interpretation. In particular, I am persuaded by the following point: “The Lord’s Supper is probably intended: while this was celebrated in the course of a fellowship meal, the emphasis on breaking the bread suggests that this ‘circumstance wholly trivial in itself’ was ‘the significant element of the celebration. . . . But it could only be significant when it was a ‘signum,’ viz. of Christ’s being broken in death” (F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 3rd rev. and enlarged ed. [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990], 132). Bruce cites R. Otto, The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man, E. T. (London: 21943), 315.

[2]The question of the relationship between the Synoptic Gospels’ accounts and the Gospel of John’s treatment is beyond the scope of this book. Certain common themes—the Jewish Passover, Judas’s betrayal of Jesus—run through both the Synoptics and John, but the differences are quite striking: John does not present the institution of the breaking of bread and the cup (though John 6:22–59 may make allusions to it); the Synoptics do not treat Jesus’ servant action of washing the disciples’ feet and his high priestly prayer. A reasonable proposal for why John does not include the institution itself is offered by Pennington: “This may be simply another example of the common phenomenon where the most obvious thing about the meal—the bread and cup—was so well known in Christian tradition by John’s time that it was not stated explicitly” (Jonathan T. Pennington, “The Lord’s Last Supper in the Fourfold Witness of the Gospels,” in The Lord’s Supper: Remembering and Proclaiming Christ Until He Comes, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Matthew R. Crawford, NAC Studies in Bible and Theology [Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010], 37). While acknowledging that John’s treatment assumes knowledge of the institution and emphasizes other aspects of it, I will concentrate my presentation of the Lord’s Supper on the Synoptic Gospels’ explicit accounts of it.

[3]The following discussion is adapted from my Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 636–646.

[4]Didache 9 (ANF 7:380), in The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, ed. Michael W. Holmes (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999), 261. The citation is from Matthew 7:6.

[5]Justin Martyr, First Apology 65 (ANF 1:185).

[6]Ibid., 65–66 (ANF 1:185).

[7]Cyprian, Letter 62.8 (ANF 5:360). The text has been rendered clearer.

[8]Apostolic Constitutions 2.39 (ANF 7:414).

[9]Origen, Commentary on Matthew 11.14 (ANF 10:443).

[10]Cyprian, Letter 10.1 (ANF 5:291).

[11]Justin Martyr describes a typical service in the early church: “And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and . . . when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution [of the Eucharist] to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion of it is sent by the deacons” (Justin Martyr, First Apology 67 [ANF 1:186]).

[12]Cyprian, Letter 62.9 (ANF 5:360–361).

[13]Cyprian exhorted the church, “maintain the plan of evangelical truth, and of the tradition of the Lord, and do not by human and novel institution depart from that which Christ our master both prescribed and did” (Cyprian, Letter 62.1 [ANF 5:359]).

[14]For further discussion, see Michael A. G. Haykin, “‘A Glorious Inebriation:’ Eucharistic Thought and Piety in the Patristic Era,” in Lord’s Supper, 103–126.

[15]Didache 14 (ANF 7:381), in Apostolic Fathers, 267. Furthermore, Justin Martyr, addressing Trypho the Jew, saw Malachi as a prophet announcing the contrast between the Jews and the Gentile church: the Jews would continue to bring worthless offerings to God, while the church would offer a true sacrifice—the Lord’s Supper—to glorify God (Justin Martyr, Dialog with Trypho the Jew 41 [ANF 1:215]; cf. Dialog 117 [ANF 1:257–258]). Irenaeus continued to link the Malachi passage with the sacrifice of the Eucharist (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.17.5 [ANF 1:484]).

[16]Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.18.1 (ANF 1:484).

[17]Irenaeus, Fragment 37 (ANF 1:574).

[18]Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.18.5 (ANF 1:486).

[19]Cyprian, Letter 62.14 (ANF 5:362).

[20]Ibid., 62.17 (ANF 5:363).

[21]Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans 6.2 (ANF 1:89), in Apostolic Fathers, 189.

[22]Ibid., Letter to the Romans 7.3 (ANF 1:76–77), in Apostolic Fathers, 175.

[23]Justin Martyr, First Apology 66 (ANF 1:185).

[24]Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.2.3 (ANF 1:528).

[25]Irenaeus, Fragment 37 (ANF 1:574).

[26]Justin Martyr, Dialog with Trypho the Jew 70 (ANF 1:234).

[27]Ibid., 41 (ANF 1:215).

[28]Cyprian, Letter 62.14 (ANF 5:362).

[29]Tertullian then gives examples of wine as a symbol for blood (Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.40 [ANF 3:418]). The text has been rendered clearer, especially substituting the word “symbol” for “figure.”

[30]Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh 8 (ANF 3:551).

[31]Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians 20 (ANF 1:57), in Apostolic Fathers, 151.

[32]Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.18.6 (ANF 1:486).

[33]Origen, Against Celsus 8.57 (ANF 4:661).

[34]Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 2.2 (ANF 2:242–243). As Origen pointed out, this benefit of personal sanctification is not automatic for the one participating in the Lord’s Supper. It is profitable only for those who participate in a worthy manner (Origen, Commentary on Matthew 11.14 [ANF 10:443]).

[35]Cyprian, Treatise 9: On the Advantage of Patience 14 (ANF 5:488).

[36]Augustine, Sermon 227, in J. N. D. Kelley, Early Christian Doctrines, rev. ed. (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1978), 447.

[37]Augustine, On the Catechizing of the Uninstructed 26.50 (NPNF^1 3:312).

[38]Augustine, Exposition of the Psalms 99.8 (NPNF^1 8:485–486).

[39]Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, John 6:41–59, Tractate 26.18 (NPNF^1 7:173).

[40]Augustine, Sermon 272, in Works of St. Augustine, ed. John E. Rotelle, vol. 7: Sermons, trans. Edmund Hill (Hyde Park, NY: New City, 1993), pt. 3, 300–301.

[41]For an overview of this debate, see Allison, Historical Theology, 641–642; David S. Hogg, “Carolingian Conflict: Two Monks on the Mass,” in Lord’s Supper, 127–150.

[42]Berengar of Tours, Fragments, appearing in Lanfranc of Bec, On the Body and Blood of the Lord 2, in Documents of the Christian Church, ed. Henry Bettenson and Chris Maunder, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 163. Berengar later repudiated this recantation, and was again condemned in 1079.

[43]For further discussion, see Gregg R. Allison, “The Theology of the Eucharist according to the Catholic Church,” in Lord’s Supper, 151–192.

[44]Alexander III, The Sentences of Roland. The term also appeared in Stephen of Autun’s On the Sacrament of the Altar, at about the same time.

[45]Fourth Lateran Council, canon 1, in The Early and Medieval Church, ed. Ray C. Petry, vol. 1 of A History of Christianity: Readings in the History of the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1990), 322–323.

[46]This Council also established the law that people should participate in the sacrament at least once a year following the confession of sins (Fourth Lateran Council, canon 21). Though proclaimed by this council, the rule stipulating participation in communion at least once a year was not followed by other councils in the thirteenth century. For example, the Council of Toulouse in 1229 and the Council of Albi in 1254 ruled that the faithful should participate in the Eucharist at least three times a year—Christmas and Pentecost, in addition to Easter (Council of Toulouse, canon 13; Council of Albi, canon 29).

[47]Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 3.75.4.

[48]Ibid. 3.75.5.

[49]Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday/Image Books, 1995), 1324.

[50]Vatican II, the twenty-first and latest general council of the Catholic Church, took place from 1962 to 1965. It served as an aggiornamento (updating) of the Church; its implementation has brought many changes and continues today.

[51]“The liturgy of the Word and liturgy of the Eucharist together form ‘one single act of worship’; the Eucharistic table set for us is the table both of the Word of God and of the Body of the Lord” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1346).

[52]Beginning in the thirteenth century, the Catholic Church began to give the bread but not the cup to the laity. This practice was justified theologically by the doctrine of concomitance, which was explained by Bonaventure: “Because the blessed and glorious body of Christ cannot be divided into its parts and cannot be separated from the soul or from the highest divinity, so under each species there is the one, entire, and indivisible Christ—namely, body, soul, and God. Thus, in each is present the one and most simple sacrament containing the entire Christ. And because every part of the species signifies the body of Christ, the whole body so exists in the whole species and it is in any part of it, whether it be undivided or separated” (Bonaventura, Breviloquium, 6.9 [5], in E. E. Nemmers, Breviloquium of St. Bonaventura [St. Louis: B. Herder, 1946], 199–200). Thus, if lay people receive only one of the elements, they still receive all of Christ. Practically, this change was instituted out of concern for profaning the holy sacrament. The Church feared that the frequent serving of the cup could result in some of the wine (and water) being spilled; thus, the blood of Christ would be desecrated. To avoid this happening, the Church restricted the drinking of the cup to the priest who celebrated the mass. This was called communion in one kind because only one element—the bread—was given to the laity during the mass. As indicated, Vatican II encouraged a return to communion in both kinds.

[53]Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1353–1354.

[54]Ibid., 1359.

[55]Ibid., 1365–1366.

[56]Ibid., 1367.

[57]Ibid., 1390.

[58]Ibid., 1391–1397.

[59]Ibid., 1128; cf. Eucharisticum Mysterium (“Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery”), in Austin Flannery, Vatican Council II: vol. 1, The Conciliar and Postconciliar Documents, new rev. ed. (Northport, NY: Costello; and Dublin, Ireland: Dominican, 1998), 111.

[60]The term “consubstantiation” is used with advisement. The Lutherans did not use it; indeed, Calov denied that the Lutheran view was “consubstantiation, which the Calvinists calumniously charge upon us” (Abraham Calov, Systema Locorum Theologicorum, 9.307; cited in Heinrich Schmid, The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, 3rd ed., trans. Charles A. Hay and Henry E. Jacobs [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1899], 564). This being said, however, the term has become so widely associated with the Lutheran position that I will use it here as I explain the historical development of the position. The following discussion has been adapted from Allison, Historical Theology, 647–650.

[61]Martin Luther, “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” in Word and Sacrament II, ed. Abdel R. Wentz, vol. 36 of Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1959), 29.

[62]Ibid.

[63]Ibid., 30.

[64]Ibid., 31.

[65]Ibid.

[66]Ibid.

[67]Luther presented a biblical case against it. Appealing to Matthew 26:27 and Mark 14:23, he noted Jesus’ insistence that the cup be drunk by “all” of his disciples. He also dissented logically, reasoning that if the Lord’s Supper is given “to the laity, it inevitably follows that it ought not to be withheld from them in either form. And if any do withhold it from them when they ask for it, they are acting impiously and contrary to the act, example and institution of Christ.” Most importantly, Luther focused on the question “For whom was the blood of Christ poured out?” and its proper portrayal in the Lord’s Supper: “Christ says: ‘This is my blood, which is poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins’ [Matt. 26:28 with Luke 22:20]. Here you see very clearly that the blood is given to all those for whose sins it was poured out. But who will dare to say that it was not poured out for the laity?” Finally, Luther questioned “the practical use of denying both kinds, that is, the visible sign, to the laity, when everyone concedes to them the grace of the sacrament without the sign? If they concede the grace, which is the greater, why not the sign, which is the lesser?” (ibid., 20–23). He called for a general council of the Catholic Church to put an end to this tyranny.

[68]Ibid., 35.

[69]Ibid.

[70]Ibid., 38.

[71]Martin Luther, The Short Catechism, 6, in Documents of the Christian Church, 230.

[72]Martin Luther, “Confession concerning Christ’s Supper,” in Word and Sacrament III, ed. Robert H. Fischer, vol. 37 of Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1961), 299–300.

[73]Ibid., 207. As we will see, Zwingli agreed that the right hand of God is everywhere present, but he believed this to be true of Christ according to his deity, not according to his humanity.

[74]Ibid., 210.

[75]Ibid., 218. For holding this belief, Luther was charged by his opponents with the ancient heresy of Eutychianism, or the fusion of the divine and human natures into one nature.

[76]The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, 7.35, uses the phrase “under the bread, with the bread, in the bread” to address how the body of Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper. Ursinus is credited with coining the term consubstantiation (Explanations of the Heidelberg Catechism, 2.78.4; cf. Theodore Beza, Against Matthias Flacius Illyricus 29–30).

[77]The Epitome of the Formula of Concord, 42/21.

[78]For further discussion of Luther’s view, see Matthew R. Crawford, “On Faith, Signs, and Fruits: Martin Luther’s Theology of the Lord’s Supper,” in Lord’s Supper, 193–228.

[79]The following discussion has been adapted from Allison, Historical Theology, 650–652.

[80]Huldrych Zwingli, An Exposition of the Faith, in Zwingli and Bullinger, trans. and ed. G. W. Bromiley, Library of Christian Classics 24 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979), 254–255.

[81]Ibid. 255. His citation of Augustine is a paraphrase from On the Gospel of St. John, Tractate 30 (NPNF^1 7:186). Zwingli strengthened this point by focusing on the promise of Christ in John 17:11 and its fulfillment in his ascension: “‘Again, I leave the world and go to the Father.’ Truth itself compels us to refer this saying primarily and quite literally to Christ’s humanity. . . . Which nature is it that leaves the world? Not the divine, for the divine nature is not confined to one place and therefore does not leave it. Consequently, it is the human nature that leaves the world. . . . [A]s regards a natural, essential and localized presence, the humanity is not here, for it has left the world. Hence, the body of Christ is not eaten by us naturally or literally . . . but sacramentally and spiritually” (ibid., 257).

[82]Ibid., 256.

[83]Ibid., 189–190.

[84]Ibid., 190.

[85]Ibid., 190–191.

[86]Ibid., 225.

[87]Ibid.

[88]Ibid., 203.

[89]Alister McGrath, Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993), 171.

[90]Ibid.

[91]Huldrych Zwingli, “Of Baptism,” in Zwingli and Bullinger, 131.

[92]McGrath, Reformation Thought, 172. Borrowing another analogy from Cornelius Hoen, Zwingli presented the Lord’s Supper as a pledge similar to a ring given by a groom to his bride as they marry. The ring is special because of the context in which it is presented. Zwingli specifically addressed a ring worn by a queen, a present from her king: “The ring with which your majesty was betrothed to the queen your consort is not valued by her merely according to the value of the gold: it is gold, but it is also beyond price, because it is the symbol of her royal husband. For that reason she regards it as the king of all her rings, and if ever she is naming and valuing her jewels she will say: This is my king, that is, the ring with which my royal husband was betrothed to me. It is the sign of an indissoluble union and fidelity. In the same way the bread and wine are the symbols of that friendship by which God is reconciled to the human race in and through his Son. We do not value them according to their intrinsic worth, but according to the greatness of that which they represent. The bread is no longer common, but consecrated. It is called bread, but it is also called the body of Christ. Indeed, it is in fact the body of Christ, but only in name and signification, or, as we now say, sacramentally” (Zwingli, “Exposition of the Faith,” 262–263).

[93]G. R. Potter, Zwingli (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 330, 2n. Some recent scholarship on Zwingli dissents from the traditional understanding of his view of the Lord’s Supper as merely a memorial celebration. One passage from Zwingli that would seem to support this dissenting view asserts that Christians come to “the Lord’s Supper to feed spiritually upon Christ” (Zwingli, “Exposition of the Faith,” 259). For further discussion, see Gottfried W. Lochner, Zwingli’s Thought: New Perspectives (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981); Bruce A. Ware, “The Meaning of the Lord’s Supper in the Theology of Ulrich Zwingli (1484–1531),” in Lord’s Supper, 229–247.

[94]The following discussion has been adapted from Allison, Historical Theology, 652–654.

[95]John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 4.17.12.

[96]Ibid., 4.17.16–17.

[97]Ibid., 4.17.5.

[98]Ibid., 4.17.19.

[99]Ibid., 4.17.1.

[100]Ibid., 4.17.3.

[101]Ibid., 4.17.10.

[102]Ibid.

[103]Ibid.

[104]Ibid., 4.17.18.

[105]Ibid., 4.17.24.

[106]Ibid.

[107]Ibid., 4.17.31.

[108]Ibid., 4.17.5.

[109]Ibid., 4.14.13. In this section, Calvin criticized Zwingli’s view of the sacraments as oaths. Though Calvin did not deny this aspect of the sacraments, he put it in its proper priority: “We do not tolerate that what is secondary in the sacraments is regarded by them as the first and even the only point. Now, the first point is that the sacraments should serve our faith before God; after this, that they should attest our confession before men” (ibid., 4.17.37). Calvin added a third purpose for the Lord’s Supper: to encourage mutual love among believers (ibid., 4.17.38).

[110]For a contemporary presentation of the Reformed view of this sacrament, see Michael S. Horton, People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 119–152.

[111]The following discussion has been adapted from Allison, Historical Theology, 655, 656.

[112]Schleitheim Confession, 3, in William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Valley Forge, PA: Judson, 1969), 25–26.

[113]Ibid., 4, in Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, 26.

[114]Ibid., 3, in Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, 26.

[115]For further discussion, see Gregory A. Wills, “Sounds from Baptist History,” in Lord’s Supper, 285–312.

[116]A Declaration of Faith of English People Remaining at Amsterdam in Holland (1611), 15, in Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, 120–121. The text has been rendered clearer. Cf. Short Confession of Faith in XX Articles by John Smyth, 15, in Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, 101.

[117]A Declaration of Faith, 19, in Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, 121. Although originally observing the Lord’s Supper on a weekly basis, Baptists soon switched to monthly administration for two reasons: concern that very frequent celebrations would result in a sacramental ritualism similar to that of the Catholic mass, and fear that frequent observance of the Lord’s Supper would detract from the central element of preaching the Word of God.

[118]In its article on baptism, later versions of the First London Confession restricted participation in the Lord’s Supper to those who had been baptized (the phrase “and after [baptism] to partake of the Lord’s Supper” was added in later editions) (First London Confession of Faith, 39, in Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, 167).

[119]Isaac Backus, A History of New England with Particular Reference to the Denomination of Christians Called Baptists, 2 vols. (Newton, MA: Backus Historical Society, 1871), 2:116.

[120]I will discuss these various views in more detail later in this chapter.

[121]Second London Confession, 30.8, in Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, 293.

[122]Michael Haykin, “‘His Soul-Refreshing Presence’: The Lord’s Supper in Calvinistic Baptist Thought and Experience in the ‘Long’ Eighteenth Century,” in Baptist Sacramentalism, ed. Anthony R. Cross and Philip E. Thompson, Studies in Baptist History and Thought (Carlisle, Cumbria, UK; Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2002), 188–189. Haykin cites John Sutcliff, The Ordinance of the Lord’s Supper Considered (Dunstable: Circular Letter of the Northamptonshire Association, 1803), 2, 3.

[123]Ibid. Haykin cites Sutcliff, On Obedience to Positive Institutions (Dunstable: Circular Letter of the Northamptonshire Association, 1808), 6.

[124]Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 1130.

[125]For further discussion of these views, see John H. Armstrong, ed., Understanding Four Views of the Lord’s Supper (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 2007), which offers multiple perspectives.

[126]I. Howard Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980), 16–17.

[127]The classic study of the institution of the Lord’s Supper in the Gospels is Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, trans. Norman Perrin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955).

[128]“If the eating of the Passover meal served to identify the Israelites with the redemption from Egypt, so does this ‘eating’ and ‘drinking’ convey the benefits of Jesus’ paschal sacrifice to those who share his table” (R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Leicester, UK: Inter-Varsity and Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 368–369.

[129]The four cups of the Passover are associated with the four lines of Exodus 6:6–7 (Jehovah speaking): “Say therefore to the people of Israel, ‘I am the LORD, and [first cup] I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and [second cup] I will deliver you from slavery to them, and [third cup] I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgment. [fourth cup] I will take you to be my people, and I will be your God, and you shall know that I am the LORD your God, who has brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.”

[130]The expression “new covenant” is found in Luke’s account (Luke 22:20; cf. 1 Cor. 11:25).

[131]Geoffrey Wainwright, Doxology: The Praise of God in Worship, Doctrine, and Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), 137.

[132]Jeremias, Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 228–229.

[133]D. A. Carson, Matthew, Expositor’s Bible Commentary 8 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 539.

[134]This vicarious aspect is found in Matthew (26:28) and Mark (14:24) but in association with Jesus’ words about the cup.

[135]Neither Matthew nor Mark has this saying, though Paul has it in association with both the bread and the cup (1 Cor. 11:24, 25).

[136]This does not mean that the Jewish Passover is worthless or obsolete, or that a Christian celebration of the Jewish Seder around Easter time is illegitimate.

[137]For this reason, I do not think that the church is required to use unleavened bread or to separate the eating of the bread and the drinking of the cup as Jesus and his disciples did at the Last Supper. For further discussion, see Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper, 111.

[138]David Garland emphasizes the importance of interpreting Paul’s discussion of the Lord’s Supper in the context of his warning the Corinthians against idolatry (David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003], 476; cf. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987], 442; Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, PNTC [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010], 443).

[139]On the typology of this section (1 Cor. 10:1–13), see Ciampa and Rosner, First Letter to the Corinthians, 451–455; Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 731–733.

[140]Garland, 1 Corinthians, 468–469; Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 461–462; challenged by Ciampa and Rosner, First Letter to the Corinthians, 467–468. This interpretation is by far the most common understanding of v. 13, but it seems to extract the promise from its specific context and miss the key idea.

[141]My thanks to my Garrett Fellows Aaron O’Kelley and Chris Bosson for their work on this passage. For further support for this interpretation, see Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 274; J. Paul Sampley, The First Letter to the Corinthians, in The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck, vol. 10 (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 915–916.

[142]The words “stand” and “fall” (see 1 Cor. 10:12) have reference to salvation elsewhere in the Pauline corpus: Romans 5:2; 11:11, 20, 22; 14:4; 1 Corinthians 15:1; 2 Corinthians 1:24; Colossians 4:12.

[143]Both points have been made earlier in this letter (1 Corinthians 8).

[144]Garland, 1 Corinthians, 480; Ciampa and Rosner, First Letter to the Corinthians, 478. For an excellent discussion of the biblical presentation of the nothingness of idols but the reality of false gods and demons lurking behind the idols, see Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 136–163.

[145]Garland, 1 Corinthians, 477–478; Ciampa and Rosner, First Letter to the Corinthians, 471–476; contra Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, 2nd ed., ICC (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1925), 212.

[146]Why Paul does not include the parallel—“Because there is one cup, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one cup”—is a matter for speculation. It could be that he is continuing his earlier analogy of the church as unleavened bread (1 Cor. 5:6–8). Another possibility is that sustaining the chiastic structure of the argument might have been rather ponderous:

A the cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ?

B the bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

B' because there is one bread, we who are many are one body . . .

A' because there is one cup, we who are many are one body . . .

According to this speculation, Paul left out the last line of his chiastic argument because it is too far removed from the first line and is ponderous repetition.

[147]The expression “when you come together” is repeated three times in 1 Corinthians 11:17–20 with an echo in v. 33. Just how often this all-member feast and Lord’s Supper would occur is not indicated, but Paul’s language speaks strongly against the view that the earliest churches were all rather small because they had to meet in homes. I do not dispute the (probably widespread) existence of house churches; but I do dissent from the contention that this was the only venue for Christians to come together. Clearly, the love feast as it was celebrated in Corinth involved the coming together of a significant number of Corinthian Christians in a facility or open area that could accommodate both the people and the food they brought for the feast.

[148]Paul’s notation “I received from the Lord” does not necessarily mean that he got his tradition directly from Jesus Christ by means of revelation. The expression may be shorthand for “I received from the Lord through the apostles (or Luke, or the church of Jerusalem)” this tradition of the Lord’s Supper. (Marshall [Last Supper and Lord’s Supper, 32] believes Paul received it from the Jerusalem church.) Some argue for direct divine revelation being his source on the basis of Paul’s statement that he did not receive the gospel—the message of Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and post-resurrection appearances (1 Cor. 15:3ff.)—from any human being or human teaching but “through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:11–12). But what is true of Paul’s source for the gospel message does not have to be true of the source for his tradition about the Lord’s Supper. He certainly does not emphasize the divine rather than human origin for this latter tradition as he does in regard to the gospel. And the striking parallels between his account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper in his letter to the Corinthians and the narrative in Luke’s Gospel make Paul’s dependence on Luke (or on the source for Luke’s narrative) highly probable. Paul certainly had access to Luke as the two were traveling companions on the apostle’s third missionary journey (Acts 18:23–21:17). The variations between Luke’s Gospel account and Paul’s tradition are minor: (1) with regard to the bread, Luke notes that Jesus “gave it” to the disciples (Luke 22:19); Paul does not indicate that action. Perhaps the apostle is generalizing the celebration for the church. (2) As for Jesus’ statement about his body, Luke explains that it is “given for” the disciples (Luke 22:19)—not just “for” them. (3) Concerning the cup, Luke specifies that it is “poured out for you” (Luke 22:20).

[149]The note of betrayal is also sounded in Matthew’s (26:14–16, 47–50) and Mark’s (14:10–11, 43–46) accounts.

[150]As for Jesus’ instructions about the cup, Luke does not repeat Jesus’ words about the bread and remembrance, as Paul does.

[151]The church’s action of receiving the distributed elements is an essential part of the Lord’s Supper celebration. Referring to the bread, symbol of the body of Christ given for his followers, and the cup, symbol of the blood of Christ shed for them, Gary Badcock explains, “both are received in the act of personal and corporate faith called communion” (Gary D. Badcock, The House Where God Lives: Renewing the Doctrine of the Church for Today [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009], 100).

[152]John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God, Foundations of Evangelical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001), 249.

[153]Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion, and Authorship, Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 293.

[154]For further discussion, see Horton, People and Place, 1–34.

[155]My view bears resemblance to the spiritual presence perspective. Indeed, Calvin’s explanation of how the church communes with the ascended Christ—through the effective power of the Holy Spirit to either raise it up to be with Christ in heaven, or to bring about his descent to commune with the church on earth—may be correct, but the speculative nature of this discussion urges me to be cautious in affirming it. Moreover, my view emphasizes, as does Paul, that communion is a participation in Christ’s body and blood, not in his divine nature (cf. Bruce McCormack, “Union with Christ in Calvin’s Theology,” in Tributes to John Calvin: A Celebration of His Quincentenary, ed. David Hall [Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2010], 504–529).

[156]Jürgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, trans. Margaret Kohl (New York: Harper & Row, 1977), 259.

[157]Among Christian churches, only the Quakers do not observe this ordinance.

[158]Of course, I am addressing the administration of this ordinance by the church. This statement does not preclude isolated Christians—imprisoned, for example—from observing it.

[159]John L. Dagg, Manual of Theology, Second Part: A Treatise on Church Order (Charleston, SC: Southern Baptist Publication Society, 1859), 212–213.

[160]Ben Witherington III, Making a Meal of It: Rethinking the Theology of the Lord’s Supper (Dallas: Baylor University Press, 2007), 137.

[161]John Calvin, Articles concerning the Organization of the Church and of Worship at Geneva 1537, in Calvin: Theological Treatises, ed. J. K. S. Reid, Library of Christian Classics 22 (London: SCM Press, 1954), 49–50.

[162]By this proposal I don’t intend to suggest that effecting such a change will be easy. But I do think it is very important. In support of such a change among Reformed and Presbyterian churches, see Horton, People and Place, 255.

[163]Wainwright, Doxology, 363.

[164]Ibid., 134.

[165]Accordingly, I have no respect for Brian McLaren’s iconoclastic “new kind of Lord’s Supper” in The Story We Find Ourselves In: Further Adventures of a New Kind of Christian (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003), 109–113. In his narrative, McLaren has the main characters celebrate the Lord’s Supper with raisin bread and wine—just different enough to break with tradition. That one of them is permitted to do so before she is baptized is another reversal of the traditional practice—first baptism, then the Lord’s Supper. Certainly, there are many instances of what Rob Bell calls a “Velvet Elvis” in the contemporary church; such sacred cows need removal or renovation (Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005]). However, as Timothy J. Stoner emphasizes, the church also contains “Velvet Rembrandts” with which one must not dare to tamper (Timothy J. Stoner, The God Who Smokes: Scandalous Meditations on Faith [Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2008], 35–52). In my view, the Lord’s Supper, with its traditional elements of bread and wine, is a Velvet Rembrandt and must not be altered.

[166]Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1385.

[167]Increase Mather and Edward Taylor dubbed Solomon Stoddard’s position a “converting ordinance.” Stoddard’s initial formulation of the view was in the pamphlet entitled “Nine Arguments against Examinations concerning the Work of Grace before Admission to the Lord Supper” (1679); other works in which he treats the position are: “The Doctrine of Instituted Churches Explained and Proved from the Word of God” (1700); “An Appeal to the Learned. Being a Vindication of the Right of Visible Saints to the Lord’s Supper, though They Be Destitute of a Saving Work of God’s Spirit on Their Hearts; against the Exceptions of Mr. Increase Mather” (1709); and “The Inexcusableness of Neglecting the Worship of God” (1708). My thanks to Dave McDowell for his help with these resources.

[168]In verbal discussions of this topic, clear pronunciation of these terms is helpful for clarity’s sake. Accordingly, “close” in “close communion” has the “s” sound of the adjective, as in “close quarters,” while “closed” in “closed communion” has the “z” sound of the verb, as in “he closed the door.”

[169]John L. Dagg, An Essay in Defense of Strict Communion (Penfield, GA: Benj. Brantly, 1845), 8.

[170]Ibid., 10–11.

[171]See my earlier historical discussion.

[172]According to A. Booth, “In submitting to baptism, we have an emblem of our union and communion with Jesus Christ, as our great Representative, in his death, burial, and resurrection; and as in baptism we profess to have renewed spiritual life, so in communicating at the Lord’s table we have the emblems of that heavenly food by which we live—by which we grow—. . . . Hence, theological writers have often called baptism the sacrament . . . of initiation, and the Lord’s Supper the sacrament of nutrition” (As quoted in Dagg, An Essay in Defense of Strict Communion, 12).

[173]For a fine contemporary discussion in favor of a modified closed communion, see John S. Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2005), 283–288. For arguments against closed communion from an open communion position, see John R. Tyler, Baptism: We’ve Got It Right . . . and Wrong (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2003); and the chapters by G. Todd Wilson, “Why Baptists Should Not Rebaptize Christians from Other Denominations”; Fisher Humphreys, “A Baptist Theology of the Lord’s Supper”; and Thomas Clifton, “Fencing the Table,” in Proclaiming the Baptist Vision: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, ed. Walter B. Shurden (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 1999).

[174]Dagg, Manual of Theology, 214.

[175]Dagg, Essay in Defense of Strict Communion, 5. Dagg’s discussion references Robert Hall, On Terms of Communion: with a Particular View to the Case of the Baptists and Paedobaptists (Philadelphia: T. S. Manning, 1816).

[176]Ibid., 9.

[177]Ibid.

[178]Ibid.

[179]Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 997.

[180]Dagg, Essay in Defense of Strict Communion, 12.

[181]An important historical resource for the open communion position is John Bunyan’s Differences in Judgment about Water-Baptism No Bar to Communion (1673), to which response was made by William Kiffin and Thomas Paul, Serious Reflections (London, 1673).

[182]J. L. Reynolds, “Church Polity of the Kingdom of Christ,” in Mark E. Dever, ed, Polity: Biblical Arguments on How to Conduct Church Life (Washington, DC: Center for Church Reform, 2001), 391.

[183]Grudem, Systematic Theology, 999.

[184]Witherington, Making a Meal of It, 135.

[185]Clearly, the confession of other sins that come to mind during the self-assessment is right and honoring to the Lord, but again this activity is not what Paul calls for in this passage. More to the point, John Hammett’s suggestions for preparation for participation in the Lord’s Supper are helpful to stimulate strong spiritual character among church members, which development is always important and needed. He emphasizes renewal of repentance, faith, and love ahead of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper—what he calls “prior self-examination” (Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches, 288–291).

[186]The Didache confirms that this interpretation was present in the early church: “On the Lord’s own day gather together and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who has a quarrel with a companion join you until they have been reconciled, so that your sacrifice may not be defiled” (Didache, 14 [ANF 7:381], in Apostolic Fathers, 267).

[187]Witherington, Making a Meal of It, 131.

[188]Moltmann, Church in the Power of the Spirit, 257–258.

[189]Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, trans. Geoffrey Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 31.

[190]This point is well made by Russell D. Moore, “A Baptist View,” in Armstrong, Understanding Four Views on the Lord’s Supper, 33.

[191]This is an important point that Pannenberg makes: “In the Lord’s Supper, of course, the church does not celebrate its own fellowship. Where this happens distortions arise in the church’s liturgical life. Jesus Christ has to stand at the heart of the celebration with the promise of his fellowship with each and all the participants” (Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 293).

VI

THE MINISTRIES

OF THE CHURCH

CHAPTER

TWELVE

MINISTRIES OF THE CHURCH

This book culminates in a discussion of the ministries of the church. From its seven characteristics as the new covenant church—and aided by the pursuit of purity, the maintenance of unity, and the protection offered by church discipline; guided by its officers and structured by its government; and spurred on by the celebration of its ordinances—flow the church’s functions or activities. These ministries include worship of the triune God; proclamation of the Word of God; engagement of non-Christians with the gospel; discipleship of church members through education and community life; care for people through prayer, giving, support of pastor(s), and assistance for those in need; and engagement both for and against the world. For such endeavors the church has been sufficiently and graciously equipped by God, especially through the Holy Spirit’s endowment of its members with spiritual gifts. This chapter will begin with a brief treatment of the various spiritual gifts and then address the multifold ministries of the church.

DIVINE ENABLEMENT FOR MINISTRY: SPIRITUAL GIFTS[1]

The primary purpose for spiritual gifts is to foster the growth of the church, and they especially do so by equipping its members for ministry.[2] Four sections of the New Testament—Ephesians 4:7–12; 1 Corinthians 12:4–11 and 28–30; Romans 12:6–8—treat the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Table 12.1 brings together these four New Testament discussions as lists of the spiritual gifts, and the following section outlines briefly the nature of each of the gifts listed.

TABLE 12.1 Four Lists of Spiritual Gifts

1 Corinthians 12:8–10

1 Corinthians 12:28–30

Ephesians 4:11–12

Romans 12:6–8

utterance of wisdom

apostles

apostles

prophecy

utterance of knowledge

prophets

prophets

service

faith

teachers

evangelists

teaching

gifts of healing

miracles

pastor-teachers

exhortation

working of miracles

gifts of healing

giving

prophecy

helping

leading

distinguish spirits

administration

acts of mercy

kinds of tongues

kinds of tongues

interpretation

Apostles/Apostleship

The spiritual gift of apostleship dovetails with the office of apostle, which was treated in chapter 7. Given uniquely to the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ and a few others (e.g., Paul), this gift empowered these divinely appointed eyewitnesses of Jesus’ resurrection to proclaim the gospel and be the foundation of the church, to perform signs and wonders, to exercise peculiar authority in the first churches, and (in the case of some) to write what we now call the New Testament.

Prophets/Prophecy

The Holy Spirit’s endowment and empowerment of persons who communicate—and personal acts of communicating—revelations received from God is the spiritual gift of prophecy.

This notion is different from the widely held idea that prophecy is “tantamount to preaching,” as illustrated by William Perkins’s The Art of Prophesying that featured instruction in expository preaching.[3] Rather, it reflects the notion, developed by Wayne Grudem and others,[4] that prophecy involves two aspects: first, the reception of a message; and second, the report of that message. Paul uses the word “revelation” (1 Cor. 14:26, 30) for the first aspect: God discloses something to the prophet. The second aspect is its communication to the church, a communication that is regulated in its exercise and is to be evaluated by the church (1 Cor. 14:29–32). Thus, through the gift of prophecy, the church grows. Indeed, this gift is the focus of Paul’s instruction that the church must “earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy” (1 Cor. 14:1).[5]

Teachers/Teaching/Pastor-teachers

This spiritual gift is the Spirit’s endowment and empowerment of persons who communicate—and personal acts of communicating—sound biblical and theological truth.

It is Scripture that is taught (Gal. 6:6; Matt. 5:19) because the inspired Word of God is “profitable for teaching” (2 Tim. 3:16). Such teaching is, on the one hand, a community matter; everyone is to be engaged in teaching everyone else (Col. 3:16). This responsibility falls especially on the mature members of the congregation (Heb. 5:12), but it is also the particular responsibility of the pastors (Eph. 4:11) or elders (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:9) of the church, some of whom “especially . . . labor in preaching and teaching” (1 Tim. 5:17). Though the particular relationship between the spiritual gift of teaching and the elder-level responsibility to teach is not spelled out in Scripture, certainly pastors must be able to teach (3:2) and would be well served by having this gift. Because teaching is not confined to this office, however, the church does well to “earnestly desire the higher gifts” (1 Cor. 12:31), a category of endowments that includes teaching, which is ranked third in value after the gifts of apostleship and prophecy (v. 28).

Evangelists

The Holy Spirit’s endowment and empowerment of persons who communicate—and of personal acts of communicating—the gospel of Jesus Christ, and who equip others to do the same, is the spiritual gift of evangelism.

The purpose of this gift focuses on those outside of the church, with the goal that sinful human beings who do not yet know Christ savingly would be forgiven and become members of the church. Indeed, when the gospel is appropriated through repentance and belief in Christ, salvation is the result (Eph. 1:13; 1 Thess. 1:5; 2 Thess. 2:13–14). Evangelists are the key human instrument in this process (Rom. 10:13–15; 1 Cor. 3:5). These communicators of the gospel, relying on the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:4–5), become known as the “parents” of those they lead to Christ, a unique relationship and privilege (1 Cor. 4:15). It is for the sake of those who by faith will become Christ-followers—Paul refers to them as “the elect” (2 Tim. 2:10)—that evangelists are compelled to proclaim the message of Christ (1 Cor. 9:15–18) and thereby fulfill their task (2 Tim. 4:1–5). Whereas it is incumbent on all Christians to engage in sharing the gospel, those to whom this endowment has been given prove to be unusually fruitful in leading people to Christ. They also assist the church in preparing the other members to evangelize, an important ministry of the church.

Utterance of Wisdom and Utterance of Knowledge

Because so little information about these two gifts is available—1 Corinthians 12:8 is the only mention of them in Scripture, and no reference to them is found in extrabiblical Christian literature—I will treat them together and offer a cautious definition. These spiritual gifts are the Spirit’s endowment and empowerment of personal acts of communicating messages that may go beyond the ordinary means of human insight and study, but these more “mundane” sources of wisdom and knowledge for the messages communicated to the congregation cannot be ruled out. Even this “word of wisdom” or “word of knowledge” would be empowered by the Holy Spirit so as to bring benefit to the church, so the results would still demonstrate that these are spiritual gifts.[6] In terms of their content, these messages may include personal counsel, practical advice, problem resolution, insight into Scripture and its application, or a host of other types of communication.

Exhortation

The Holy Spirit’s endowment and empowerment of personal acts of encouraging and admonishing is the spiritual gift of exhortation.

The goal of such exhortation is always the building up of the church and its members, so the manifestations of this gift are various and include extending comfort to the hurting, celebrating with those who have been blessed, crying with those who are saddened and grieve, rebuking sin and sinful situations, strengthening the weak, challenging those who are reticent or fearful, and the like. This unusual ability is not reserved for those trained in soul care or in the field of counseling. But it does mean that the encouragement and admonition communicated by these gifted people brings particular growth to the church in various ministries.

Leading/Administration

This spiritual gift is the Spirit’s endowment and empowerment of personal activities that give direction in the church and to other members of the church.

Included in the leadership capacities energized by the Spirit are activities and ministries oriented toward covenant keeping and community formation and development: discerning God’s will for the church and effectively communicating this vision to its members; conceptualizing, designing, developing, and executing ministries; motivating and equipping church members for ministries; managing people and their activities; achieving substantial consensus; anticipating and resolving problems and conflicts; and other similar administrative elements. Though ideally those who lead the church possess this spiritual gift, in neither the list of the qualifications for the office of elder nor the list for the diaconate is this gift mentioned. Both pastors and deacons must have proven leadership abilities (1 Tim. 3:4–5, 12; Titus 1:6), but just how their leadership responsibilities and the spiritual gift of leading or administration dovetail is not clear. This exceptional ability is not reserved for those trained in management and business administration or proficient in the most current secular leadership principles.[7] But it does mean that the direction provided by these gifted people brings particular growth to, and fosters many ministries of, the church.

Faith

The Holy Spirit’s endowment and empowerment of personal acts of overcoming and persistent trust in God and his promises is the spiritual gift of faith. This gift “is to be differentiated from both ‘saving faith’ and ‘fruit faith,’ the former referring to the faith through which a person comes to salvation, and the latter to faith as a fruit of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23) in the believer’s life. The gift of faith is rather a special impartation of faith by the Spirit that is for the good of others—‘the common good.’”[8] Such overcoming faith is necessary in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles, and it may be exercised at a critical point in time or over an extended period of time. Williams quotes James G. D. Dunn approvingly: the gift of faith is “that mysterious surge of confidence which sometimes arises within a man in a particular situation of need or challenge and which gives him an otherly certainty and assurance that God is about to act through a word or through an action (such as laying hands on someone sick).”[9] Carson adds that this “special faith . . . enables a believer to trust God to bring about certain things for which he or she cannot claim some divine promises recorded in Scripture, or some state of affairs grounded in the very structure of the gospel. One thinks, for instance, of George Müller of Bristol.”[10] This faith, according to Williams, may be used “to strengthen the faith of others,” reassure others whose faith is weak or failing, instill courage in the face of anxiety and fear, or “offer assurance that God is ready to speak and act if people will not hold back.”[11]

Service/Helping

This spiritual gift is the Spirit’s empowerment of personal acts of assisting others in the church.

An enormous range of activities is encapsulated within this gift: setting up the sanctuary or all-purpose room for the Sunday worship service, running the sound system and PowerPoint program, welcoming and ushering people to their seats prior to the service, filling the baptistery and preparing the communion elements prior to the administration of these ordinances, signing the service for deaf members, providing transportation for the elderly, and much more. This gift is not the “default mode” of spiritual giftedness; that is, in the absence of any “publicly visible” gift like teaching or leading, church members should not automatically assume that they have the gift of service. Nor is this the gift behind which people who are reluctant to take on those high visibility responsibilities hide. Paradoxically, when the gift of helping is functioning well, the church rarely notices the great blessing that the Spirit has brought through those who serve.

Giving

The Holy Spirit’s endowment and empowerment of personal acts of giving money for the advancement of the church and its ministries and for meeting the needs of others is the spiritual gift of giving.

As will be explained in detail later, one of the ministries of the church is giving, and the expectation of Scripture is that the church and its members will give joyfully, regularly, and self-sacrificially. Church members with the spiritual gift of giving have a Spirit-given enhancement of this regular practice; thus, they go above and beyond the normal ability of most other members in terms of contributing “in generosity” (Rom. 12:8). This unusual ability is not reserved for the wealthy members who give the most money; members with lesser means may still possess this gift. But it does mean that whatever the amount these gifted people contribute, their generous giving brings special blessing to the church and to those in need.

Acts of Mercy

This spiritual gift is the Spirit’s empowerment of personal acts of compassion for the comfort and relief of the church and its needy members.

Again, as will be explained in detail later, one of the ministries of the church is extending concrete help and compassionate care to the marginalized and poor, and the expectation of Scripture is that the church and its members will act mercifully (Luke 6:36). Church members with the spiritual gift of mercy have a Spirit-given enhancement of this regular practice. Following the quintessential example of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29–37), merciful church members recognize that the issue is not who constitutes their neighbor (v. 29) but what kind of neighbor they prove to be to those who are in need (v. 36). Just like the Samaritan who showed mercy to the seriously injured man, they “go and do likewise” by being merciful to the poor and disenfranchised (v. 37). This unusual ability is not reserved for the particularly heroic members of the church. Members with this gift develop a deep sense of compassion for those in need; they bring concrete help to the destitute and marginalized, an important ministry of the church.

Gifts of Healing

The Holy Spirit’s endowment and empowerment of personal acts of healing for the comfort and relief of the church and its sick members are the spiritual gifts of healing. Interestingly, “this is the only gift (charisma) that is gifts (charismata); hence the gift is not healings as such but gifts or charismata of healings.”[12] Max Turner suggests that “the plural ‘gifts (of healings)’ probably emphasizes that each event is the work of God, rather than that the ability to heal on any and every occasion is granted the charismatic in question,” that is, the Christian who has this spiritual gift.[13]

Physical healing has at its foundation the atoning work of Jesus Christ (Isa. 53:4–5; cited in Matt. 8:16–17). Additionally, it is carried out in Jesus’ name (e.g., Matt. 17:14–20; Acts 3:1–16) through the power of the Spirit at work in the gifts he gives. Furthermore, healing must be appropriated by faith.[14] Of course, “our full and complete possession of all the benefits that Christ earned for us will not come until Christ returns.” But through the gifts of healing, “God may from time to time grant us a foretaste or a down payment of the physical healing which he will grant us fully in the future.”[15] Christ-followers who have been endowed by the Spirit with gifts of healings are not prestidigitators who work magic and work it all of the time.[16] Rather, when they use their gifts, the expectation that healing will take place will be high, and healing will take place more frequently than in cases in which (not necessarily gifted) church members in general pray for divine intervention to bring relief of sickness and disease. Furthermore, church members with these gifts are not, in the common parlance, “faith healers” who stir up the hopes of sick people and encourage them to claim divine healing. Certainly, there is urgency in the desire to be healed, and the response to healing may be wonder and awe. Yet, the attention should be directed to the Great Physician and deflected away from the human agent; the healing should evoke a breathtaking awareness of the power of the Spirit and not promote any personal aggrandizement of the healer; the cause of Christ should be furthered (both in terms of encouraging belief in him and strengthening the faith of his disciples; e.g., Acts 3–4; 5:12–13; 8:4–13; 9:32–43; 13:8–12; 14:3; 19:11–20);[17] and praise and thanksgiving should redound to the glory of God (cf. Acts 14:8–18).

Working of Miracles/Miracles

This spiritual gift is the Holy Spirit’s endowment and empowerment of personal acts of power for the advancement of the kingdom of God. Like the “gifts of healings,” the “working of miracles,” or simply “miracles” (1 Cor. 12:28), is plural, signifying that “many kinds of miracles may take place.”[18]

Because this gift is distinguished from “gifts of healing,” miracles in this case are different from supernatural cures. Indeed, the word translated “miracles” could also be rendered “powers” and thus “may refer to any kind of activity where God’s mighty power is evident.”[19] As noted in Scripture, these activities include resurrections (e.g., Acts 9:36–43; 20:7–12), the exorcism of demons (e.g., 16:16–24), judgment against opponents of the gospel (e.g., Acts 13:6–12), rescue from impending disaster (e.g., Acts 27), and other types of powerful acts. According to Williams, miracles occur in the face of a need for divine intervention, they are performed out of a heart of compassion for those who stand in need of them, they are not magic, they are not to be associated with exhibitionism, and they cannot be programmed.[20]

Distinguishing of Spirits

This spiritual gift is the Spirit’s endowment and empowerment of personal acts of recognizing “the influence of the Holy Spirit or of demonic spirits in a person.”[21]

This ability is needed, according to the apostle John, because the church must “not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). Indeed, Jesus implied a warning to the church when he noted the presence of people who prophesy, exorcise demons, and perform mighty works—all in his name—and yet are not genuine Christ-followers (Matt. 7:21–23). Apparently, then, church members who possess this gift are able to discern the quality of a prophecy (1 Cor. 14:29), identify false teaching as coming from deceitful spirits and demons (1 Tim. 4:1–3), detect the duplicity of even apparently good actions (e.g., Acts 5:1–11), and the like.

Kinds of Tongues

This spiritual gift is the Spirit’s endowment and empowerment of personal acts of communicating encoded speech that rehearses the mighty acts of God (Acts 2:11; 10:46), utters mysteries directed toward God that are not cognitively understandable (1 Cor. 14:2, 9), and/or expresses prayers—of thanksgiving, for example—that derive from one’s spirit but bypass one’s mind (vv. 13–17).

The phenomenon of speaking in tongues that took place on the day of Pentecost was the result of the baptism or filling with the Holy Spirit upon the 120 disciples obediently awaiting this outpouring of the Spirit (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4–5, 15; 2:4). The Spirit endowed and empowered these men and women with the ability to rehearse “the mighty works of God” in languages that they had neither studied nor spoken, and their recitations of these divine acts gripped the immense crowd of Jewish pilgrims, who heard them speaking in their own languages (Acts 2:6–11). Peter explained (vv. 14–21) that this phenomenon was part of the fulfillment of the Jewish Scripture promise of a fresh, unprecedented outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Joel 2:28–32). To this mesmerized crowd Peter preached the gospel of the crucified and resurrected Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 2:22–41), resulting in the founding of the church of Jerusalem (vv. 44–47). At other times and places this phenomenon of speaking in tongues occurred—(possibly) at the reception of the Spirit by the Samaritans (Acts 8:14–17),[22] at the conversion of Cornelius and his Gentile family (Acts 10:44–48; 11:15–17), and at Paul’s encounter with the disciples of John the Baptist in Ephesus (19:1–7)—but it is debatable whether in these other cases the communication was in human languages.[23]

The gift of speaking in tongues constitutes a major part of Paul’s discussion of spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12–14. In these personal acts of communication the Corinthian Christians uttered mysteries to God in the Spirit that no one understood (1 Cor. 14:2, 9); thus, it is highly doubtful that this speech was in human language. Additionally, those speaking in tongues prayed from their spirit while their mind was not engaged in the communication. Given Paul’s emphasis on the purpose of spiritual gifts being for the building up of the members of the church (1 Cor. 12:7; 14:12), the value of such speaking in tongues, being personal and not corporate, was limited: because no one, including the speaker, could understand the communication, the congregation received no benefit, though the speaker was personally edified and God was addressed (14:4, 28). The minimal value of this gift is maximized, however, when the communication is accompanied by interpretation. Indeed, speaking in tongues, when interpreted, is as valuable to the church as prophetic messages (v. 5). Grudem underscores: “We should note that he [Paul] does not say they have the same functions (for other passages indicate that prophecy is communication from God toward human beings, while tongues is generally communication from human beings to God). But Paul clearly says they have equal value in edifying the church.”[24]

Interpretation of Tongues

The above discussion emphasizes the importance of interpretation when speaking in tongues takes place in the church assembly. The Spirit’s endowment and empowerment of personal acts of rendering intelligible the encoded speech communicated by one speaking in tongues is the spiritual gift of interpretation of tongues.

As an adjunct endowment accompanying the gift of speaking in tongues, interpretation does not function apart from it; oppositely, when no interpreter is present in the assembly, those who would otherwise speak in tongues are to remain silent (1 Cor. 14:27–28). If speaking in tongues comes about through human languages, the interpreter is one who knows the particular foreign language or who has been given the ability to translate it. If expressions of tongues entail some other type of phenomena, the interpreter knows the key to decode what is communicated. Because speaking in tongues involves the rehearsal of the mighty works of God, the speaking of mysteries, and the expression of prayers, “it is apparent that a person is speaking directly to God and not to other people. Yet communication to others does take place because through interpretation there is understanding of what has been said in tongues.”[25] In this way, the interpretation of tongues makes available to the church the content of what has been spoken in tongues and thereby benefits the entire community.

Other “Gifts”

Because of the nature of the New Testament’s presentation of spiritual gifts, most people regard its several lists as not containing an exhaustive inventory of the gifts that the Spirit distributes to the church. This conclusion leads to the positing of other possible spiritual gifts. These include the following: the gift of craftsmanship is often presented as a spiritual gift because of the Old Testament’s association of it with the Holy Spirit. During the construction of the tabernacle, God filled Bezalel “with the Spirit of God, with ability and intelligence, with knowledge and all craftsmanship, to devise artistic designs, to work in gold and silver and bronze, in cutting stones for setting, and in carving wood, to work in every craft” (Ex. 31:3–5; 35:30–33; cf. 28:3; 36:1). Correspondingly, in our present day, the spiritual gift of craftsmanship is given for the design of the church’s physical plant and for its actual construction and maintenance to enhance the various ministries of the church.

Along with this gift of craftsmanship goes the Spirit’s distribution of artistic abilities to various church members. These abilities include vocal talents to lead the congregation in corporate singing of praise to God, performance arts for playing instruments or doing interpretive dance, visual arts for rendering the sanctuary aesthetically beautiful to enhance worship, and the like. Here, Calvin’s point that the church has a responsibility to provide a niche for the expression of the talents of artistically gifted members is well taken.[26]

Another gift that sometimes appears in this discussion is that of marriage and its counterpart, singleness. According to Paul, marriage is a χάρισμα (charisma), or gift, as is celibacy (1 Cor. 7:7). The fact that the same word, χάρισμα, is used in both the context of spiritual gifts and that of marriage and singleness is usually the lone factor that attracts these otherwise disparate matters together. In my view, this fact is inadequate justification for including marriage and celibacy in the list of spiritual gifts.

This brief discussion[27] of the varieties of spiritual gifts sets the table for the upcoming discussion of the ministries of the church: it is equipped by the Holy Spirit through these endowments for worship, proclamation, mission, discipleship, caring, and standing for and against the world.

THE CHURCH WORSHIPS THE TRIUNE GOD

Because the church is doxological, or oriented to the glory of God, it worships the one who eternally is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In one sense, worship is the all-encompassing passion and purpose of the church. As David Peterson concludes from his biblical theology of worship,

Throughout the Bible, acceptable worship means approaching or engaging with God on the terms that he proposes and in the manner that he makes possible. It involves honouring, serving and respecting him, abandoning any loyalty or devotion that hinders an exclusive relationship with him. . . . Worship is more fundamentally faith expressing itself in obedience and adoration. Consequently, in both Testaments, it is often shown to be a personal and moral fellowship with God relevant to every sphere of life.[28]

In keeping with this all-encompassing notion of worship, we must consider that everything in which the church engages—singing songs of praise to God, reading and preaching the Word of God, educating children in the faith, giving, feeding the poor, baptizing, fellowship—if done as a faith response in obedience to and adoration of God, is worship. As the church lives, moves, and breathes coram Deo (in the presence of God in Christ; 2 Cor. 2:17; cf. 2 Tim. 4:1; 2 Cor. 2:10), it engages in worship. Indeed, “The Christian community lives by celebrating and serving the deeds, presence, promise, and commands of the God whose identification constitutes this doctrine [of the Trinity].”[29]

Defining Worship

In another sense, worship is also a more specific action. A very popular description of worship, and one that is often cited in discussions about church worship, is that of William Temple:

Worship is the submission of all our nature to God.

It is the quickening of conscience by his holiness;

the nourishment of mind with his truth;

the purifying of imagination by his beauty;

the opening of the heart to his love;

the surrender of will to his purpose.[30]

After a brief definition of worship as “the submission of all our nature to God,” Temple focuses on the results of such submission on the human conscience, mind, imagination, heart, and will. Transformation in each of these areas comes from engaging in the worship of God, whose specific attributes of holiness, truth, beauty, love, and sovereignty bring about this change. While this description is helpful for its emphasis on the transformative results of worship, the brief definition of worship as submission leaves much to be desired, as will become evident.

Historically, the church has (legitimately) sanctioned a specific activity as its “worship.” Allen Ross offers this definition:

True worship is

the celebration of being in covenant fellowship with the

sovereign and holy triune God,

by means of

the reverent adoration and spontaneous praise

of God’s nature and works

the expressed commitment of trust and obedience

to the covenant responsibilities, and

the memorial reenactment of entering into

covenant through ritual acts,

all with the confident anticipation of the fulfillment

of the covenant promises in glory.[31]

Three governing principles operate as a framework for Ross’s definition and emphasize the trinitarian orientation of Christian worship: worship must be God-centered; it must take place in Christ, the Son of God, who alone is the way to God the Father; and worship must be by—empowered by and flowing from—the Holy Spirit.[32]

The choice of the word “celebration” to define worship is key, for celebration “captures all the festivity and the ritual and the praise that is present in biblical worship.” The word itself does not necessarily carry a sense of emotionalism; indeed, some types of celebration may be somber expressions of rejoicing and thanksgiving.[33] In terms of Christian worship, what is celebrated is specifically “being in covenant fellowship with the sovereign and holy triune God.” As my fourth attribute of the church affirms, the church celebrates the new covenant that was unilaterally established by God. This covenantally structured relationship between God and the church features binding obligations on the part of both God and the church, and it has been ratified by the blood of Jesus Christ.[34] At the same time, one may rightly consider worshipful celebration to be a direct response to the sovereign and holy triune God himself (as long as that worship is framed and directed by the covenant relationship that God has established with the church).

According to the subpoints of Ross’s definition, this celebration is expressed in three ways, the first of which is “by means of the reverent adoration and spontaneous praise of God’s nature and works.” As the church celebrates this aspect of worship, it engages in recognizing and describing the worth and glory of the awesome majesty of God and his mighty acts through specific activities like singing hymns and songs of praise (of various genres [Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19] and accompanied by musical instruments, shouts of affirmations, the raising of hands, and the like), the responsive reading of psalms of praise, and speaking corporate prayers of adoration and thanksgiving.[35]

Second, this celebration is carried out “by means of . . . the expressed commitment of trust and obedience to the covenant responsibilities.” Specifically, as the church engages in this aspect of worship, it publicly reads Scripture (1 Tim. 4:13) for the congregation to hear the Word of God and become aware of its covenant obligations. This reading is accompanied by proclamation of the gospel and exposition of the Word; such preaching rehearses the identity, the mighty works, the ways, the purposes, the promises, the demands, and the warnings of God to the congregation. Exhortations and admonitions urge church members to keep their commitments to trust and obey the Lord. “Worship should also provide for many of these duties to be performed—making and fulfilling vows. . . . and reconciliation with others. It should also inspire spiritual service, such as committing time and talents to God in faithful stewardship, sharing the faith with others, and ministering to the needs of people in the community.”[36] Also included in this aspect of worship may be recitation of the church’s confession of faith; the confession of sin (for the church’s failure to trust God and obey its covenant requirements to him), accompanied by the acknowledgment of God’s forgiveness through Christ; affirming the church covenant; praying for the church’s needs, its members, other churches, the community, government leaders, the spread of the gospel, the expansion and coming of the kingdom of God on earth, and much more; and giving to support the pastors and staff, the church’s ministries, the needy among its members, the poor and marginalized outside of the church, and its missional endeavors.

Furthermore, the church’s celebration is expressed “by means of . . . the memorial reenactment of entering into covenant through ritual acts.” “Ritual” may provoke a negative reaction among some Christians, reminding them of meaningless, rote activities. But the word itself comes from the word for “rite”[37] and applies to ceremonies conducted according to a set protocol. Specifically, as the church engages in this aspect of worship, it regularly administers the two ordinances or rites of baptism and the Lord’s Supper—memorial signs of its covenantal relationship with the triune God. As unbelievers repent of their sins and embrace Christ by faith, they are baptized as Christians in the name of the triune God; baptism is the initiatory rite by which they enter into the new covenant with God and into the new covenant church. Alternatively, from a paedobaptist viewpoint, infants are baptized and thereby admitted as members into the new covenant and its community. And church members regularly observe the Lord’s Supper, which is the ongoing rite by which they celebrate the enduring new covenant relationship with God and with one another. Other ritual acts celebrated by the church may include extending the right hand of fellowship (the rite of welcoming new members into its midst) and the laying on of hands (the rite of consecrating pastors, deacons, and missionaries for their service to the Lord).

Ross concludes his definition by affirming that the church engages in celebratory worship “with the confident anticipation of the fulfillment of the covenant promises in glory.” In other words, “our worship must be eschatological. It should not only prepare us to live and serve in this world in view of the coming of the Lord, but it should also celebrate victory over the world.”[38]

Regulative Principle versus Normative Principle

To this point the discussion has focused on elements of worship such as singing songs of praise to God, speaking corporate prayers of adoration and thanksgiving, reading and preaching the Word of God, celebrating the Lord’s Supper, and the like. The issue on which I will concentrate now is why the church engages for the most part in these worship activities and not in others. Given the current phenomenon of inclusion of such activities as drama, painting, sculpture, and interpretive dance in some evangelical worship services, the challenge to the church is to discern whether such elements are legitimate expressions of worship—and how the church should decide.

Scripture insists that the church must worship God according to the way he finds acceptable.[39] The Old Testament provides several examples of illicit worship that was condemned by God: Nadab and Abihu “offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, which he had not commanded them” and they were consumed by fire from the Lord (Lev. 10:1–2). The people of Israel engaged in idolatrous worship of the golden calf (Exodus 32), abominations in the temple (Ezekiel 8–9), and child sacrifice (Jer. 32:35). These examples stand as warning examples for the church not to engage in false worship. Because of ignorance of such divine standards for worship, the church of Corinth engaged in idolatrous worship by participating in pagan sacrifices (1 Cor. 10:14–22). Moreover, the New Testament takes pains to regulate specific elements of the worship service (1 Cor. 11:2–16; 14:26–40), insisting that worship must be intelligible, purposeful, orderly, and proper.

Historically, churches have promoted two divergent positions on the issue of acceptable worship. The regulative principle “teaches that with regard to worship whatever is commanded in Scripture is required, and whatever is not commanded is forbidden.”[40] The normative principle states that the church is free to incorporate any elements into its worship unless Scripture either explicitly or implicitly prohibits them.[41] A brief history of these two principles follows.[42]

John L. Girardeau formulated the classic definition of the regulative principle: “A divine warrant is necessary for every element of doctrine, government and worship in the church; that is, whatsoever in these spheres is not commanded in the Scriptures, either expressly or by good and necessary consequence from their statements, is forbidden.”[43] This definition was the culmination of several centuries of development. In support of the principle, John Calvin articulated the following:

[T]here is a two-fold reason why the Lord, in condemning and prohibiting all fictitious worship, requires us to give obedience only to his own voice. First, it tends greatly to establish his authority that we do not follow our own pleasure, but depend entirely on his sovereignty; and, secondly, such is our folly, that when we are left at liberty, all we are able to do is to go astray. And then when once we have turned aside from the right path, there is no end to our wanderings, until we get buried under a multitude of superstitions. Justly, therefore, does the Lord, in order to assert his full right of dominion, strictly enjoin what he wishes us to do, and at once reject all human devices which are at variance with his command. Justly, too, does he, in express terms, define our limits, that we may not, by fabricating perverse modes of worship, provoke his anger against us.[44]

Calvin’s theology of worship was developed in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647).[45] In several of its sections, the Confession articulated the key elements of the regulative principle that are to govern the church’s worship of God. The first element focused on the sufficiency of Scripture. This attribute of Scripture demands that the worship of God in terms of its substance is to be regulated solely by the express or implicit instruction of the Word of God. In terms of its form, the worship of God is to be regulated in accordance with general biblical principles, but human wisdom is also to be taken into consideration.[46] The second element concerned the freedom of conscience: “God alone is Lord of the conscience and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any way contrary to his Word or beside it in matters of faith or worship.”[47] This article was expressed in opposition to Catholicism’s insistence on its many (nonbiblical) liturgical elements as necessary for the proper worship of God. The Confession objected that any such element, because it is merely a human invention and cannot be derived from Scripture, cannot be binding on true worshipers of God. Any such element, because it either stands in opposition to Scripture or is in addition to Scripture, cannot be incorporated into the church’s worship.

Third, the Confession expressly devoted an article to religious worship that became grounds for the regulative principle: “The acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself. It is so limited by his own revealed will that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.”[48] That is, God and God alone determines what is pleasing to him in terms of worship. Furthermore, God’s revelation of acceptable worship is found in Scripture and Scripture alone.

This discussion was furthered by John Owen. In his Independents’ Catechism, Owen developed the key elements of the regulative principle for church worship. He argued against the incorporation of extra elements that have no biblical warrant into the church’s service.[49] Specifically, he denied that the observance of such rites and ceremonies enhances the devotion of the worshipers, renders the worship itself more attractive and beautiful, or helps to preserve the order of church worship.[50] He explicitly condemned the Catholic Church for its violation of the regulative principle.[51] Moreover, Owen constructively set forth what elements are to be incorporated into the worship of God: “The calling, gathering, and settling of churches, with their officers, as the seat and subject of all other solemn instituted worship; prayer, with thanksgiving; singing of psalms; preaching the Word; administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Supper of the Lord; discipline and rule of the church collected and settled.”[52]

The normative principle is the opposite of the regulative principle and is embraced particularly by Lutheran and Anglican churches. The Lutheran form of the normative principle was articulated in the Formula of Concord, specifically in the tenth article, “On Church Rites.” One statement summarizes the legitimacy of incorporating adiaphora (matters neither commanded nor prohibited by Scripture) into church worship: “We believe, teach, and confess that the congregation of God of every place and every time has the power, according to its circumstances, to change such ceremonies in such manner as may be most useful and edifying to the congregation of God.”[53] The Anglican normative principle derives from the twentieth article of the Thirty-nine Articles: “The Church has power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in the controversies of the Faith. And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God’s Word written.”[54] Thus, it is not biblical warrant that is needed for incorporation of elements into the church’s worship; rather, only if Scripture prohibits the incorporation of such elements may the church not adopt them into its worship. James Bannerman contrasts the normative principle of Anglicanism with the regulative principle of presbyterianism: “In the case of the Church of England, its doctrine in regard to Church power in the worship of God is, that it has a right to decree everything, except what is forbidden in the Word of God. In the case of our own Church, its doctrine in reference to Church power in the worship of God is, that it has a right to decree nothing, except what expressly or by implication is enjoined by the Word of God.”[55]

In the contemporary evangelical scene, the normative principle reigns, if only by default. Rarely, if ever, does the heated debate about worship—the so-called “worship wars”[56]—in evangelical churches refer to or even mention the contrasting principles and advocate for one or the other.[57] Several exceptions are worth noting: an advocate of the regulative principle, J. Ligon Duncan, refreshed the definition: “The regulative principle, in short, states that worship in its content, motivation, and aim is to be determined by God alone. He teaches us how to think about him and how to approach him. The further we get away, then, from his directions, the less we actually worship.”[58] Some evangelicals even offered practical ways of applying the regulative principle to new elements that the church might consider for incorporation into its worship service.[59] Embracing both principles, Mark Driscoll claimed the freedom to incorporate new elements in the church’s worship that are not prohibited by Scripture (this is the normative principle). At the same time he emphasized that the church’s commitment to the key elements of worship expressly enjoined on the church—the regulative principle, advocating the elements of praise and adoration of the Lord, the preaching of the Word, prayer, the Lord’s Supper, etc.—is so all-consuming that new elements will not be added and allowed to crowd out the other essential elements.[60]

To conclude this discussion of the regulative versus normative principle of worship, the church must always remember that it engages in worship because God is worthy of the glory ascribed to him through worship, but “God does not need our worship. There are, indeed, worship forms and liturgies which seem to be based upon the assumption that God needs to be adored, praised, or placated. The very essence of many worship rituals is the effort to placate an angry deity, gain the goodwill of one who is feared, or ingratiate the worshipers with their God in order to earn specific favors.”[61] These approaches to worship must be repudiated. Whether the church operates with the regulative principle or the normative principle as it designs and implements its worship, it must always approach the worship of God with the proper focus and perspective.[62]

THE CHURCH PROCLAIMS THE WORD OF GOD

A second function or ministry of the church, and one that is intimately tied to its worship of the triune God, is the proclamation of the Word of God. Just as the church was birthed by the Holy Spirit on Pentecost (Acts 2:1–4), so it came into existence through the preaching of the gospel by Peter on that day (vv. 14–41). Faith in Christ is ignited by “the word of Christ,” proclaimed and heard (Rom. 10:14–17). Unbelievers are “born again . . . through the living and abiding word of God. . . . And this word is the good news that was preached” (1 Pet. 1:23, 25). Church leaders are commanded to “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths” (2 Tim. 4:2–4). The “preaching church” is portrayed and commanded, envisioned and instructed, in Scripture. As Barth affirmed, “To generate faith, God has instituted the preaching office.”[63]

When the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages drifted from the centrality of preaching the Word of God, the Reformers returned Protestant churches to logocentricity by their insistence on the first mark of a true church of Jesus Christ: the ministry of the Word. As Martin Luther detailed, “the holy Christian people are recognized by their possession of the holy Word of God.” Luther spoke not only of the “external Word”—that which is preached in the church—but also of the Word that “is sincerely believed and openly professed before the world.” For Luther, “this is the principal item, and the holiest of holy possessions”; it is the most important mark of the church. “And even if there were no other sign than this alone, it would suffice to prove that a Christian, holy people must exist there, for God’s Word cannot be without God’s people, and conversely, God’s people cannot be without God’s Word.”[64] John Calvin voiced the same idea: “Wherever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard . . . —it is not to be doubted—a church of God exists. For his promise cannot fail.”[65] This emphasis resulted in a major shift in the worship of the church from a focus on the Eucharist and adoration of the host—the body and blood of Christ present in the transubstantiated bread and cup of wine—in the Catholic Mass to preaching in Protestant worship services: “Because the focal point of the entire worship experience was the exposition of the Word of God for the purpose of revealing God’s truth and God’s will for the believers, it followed that the major portion of the worship time was spent in preaching . . . from Holy Scripture.”[66] This first mark of the true church was enshrined in all of the major Protestant confessions of faith,[67] and this legacy was passed on to evangelicalism and still remains for the most part a heritage that lives on in evangelical churches.

Such preaching is necessary for the church’s existence—a “constitutive factor of the Christian community” and its maturity, faithfulness, obedience, ministry, and expansion[68]—because God has ordained it as the instrument by which salvation is communicated to fallen human beings. In the words of the apostle Paul, “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:18–20, emphasis mine). Commenting on this ministry of reconciliation, John Webster underscores its uniqueness: “It is that which God gave. That is to say, it is a matter of election or appointment. It does not spring into being as an activity of a busy imagined community with a lively sense of the need for alternatives to oppression and marginalization. . . . The church is not simply as it were a volunteer, willing to spend itself in a task for which others are also suited but in which they decline to involve themselves.”[69] Accordingly, the church engages in preaching as that unique ministry given to it by God himself in Christ for the salvation of sinful people.

Besides its “givenness,” the ministry of reconciliation is also logocentric:

If the origin of this διακονια [diakonia; ministry] of reconciliation is the divine appointment, its content is primarily speech. What God has entrusted to the church is (in verse 19) the ‘message (λόγος) of reconciliation’: we are ‘ambassadors’ through whom God ‘makes his appeal’. Crucially, this emphasis on speech as primary in the church’s ministry of reconciliation helps retain a sense of the proper transcendence and uniqueness of the divine act of reconciliation. . . . For apostolic speech is not a making real of the gospel of reconciliation, but a testifying to the fact that in Christ and Spirit it is already realized. The word of reconciliation is a word which witnesses to that reality which lies on the other side of our speech, which it may indicate or gesture towards but which it can never embody or present or realize in our midst.[70]

Thus, the church must proclaim—clearly, urgently, persuasively (as far it depends on human effort)—the Word of God. This is not a prerogative it takes to itself. This is not a message invented by the church. The givenness and logocentricity of the ministry mean that the church must preach the Word of God—“without confusion, without change,” without compromise—as its first order of business.

One of the most persistent critiques of current evangelicalism is that many of its churches have tragically compromised this first mark of the true church. This betrayal has come about for many reasons and takes many forms.[71] Biblical and theological illiteracy on the part of both those who preach and those who listen to the preaching leads to a shallowness in messages, which only contributes more to the root illiteracy problem. Poor homiletical training of pastors handicaps them and often results in boring and unintelligible sermons. A variation of this is a tendency toward allegorizing biblical texts; while this may result in more interesting messages, they often miss the point of Scripture. Two other variations are moralistic preaching, which demands ethical behavior detached from the gospel itself and empowered more by legalism than by grace, and evangelistic preaching, which turns every biblical text into an invitation to unbelievers to convert while failing to instruct believers, thereby stunting their growth.[72] Pressure exerted on pastors to engage in more auxiliary pastoral ministries, combined with less volunteer work in these ministry areas by church members, leaves pastors with less time to study and prepare for their sermons, resulting in poorer messages. The lust for large numbers of members translates into downplaying the challenging aspects of the Christian message—the pervasiveness of sin, the radical call to discipleship—so as not to offend people and unwittingly prompt them to go elsewhere. The cultural emphasis on personal autonomy, entitlement, and hedonism contributes also to “easy believism” and fosters an individualism that prevents community formation or poisons any sense of community that exists in churches. Attention spans that have been shortened by television programming and viewing, and the replacement of auditory learning with visual learning because of the ubiquitous film media, work against effective communication by preaching. Concern to be “relevant” has wedded preaching to current fads.[73] These and other reasons are at the heart of the following assessment: “There have been few times in the history of the church when solid doctrinal preaching and teaching have been more needed. Yet seldom has such preaching been more difficult and problematic.”[74]

As a result, voices within the evangelical camp express strong support for expository preaching. As defined by Haddon Robinson, “Expository preaching is the communication of a biblical concept, derived from and transmitted through a historical, grammatical, and literary study of a passage in its context, which the Holy Spirit first applies to the personality and experience of the preacher, then through him to his hearers.”[75] An additional element is usually emphasized: “Too many preachers employ a text only as a point of departure for the sermon, but do not really preach the contents of the text. The substance of the sermon must come from the Bible . . . in order to have an expository sermon.”[76] Exposition is not exegesis; it does not refer to word statistics,[77] word etymologies,[78] and hapax legomena,[79] nor does it parse Hebrew verbs and identify Greek participles or periphrastic perfects; all of these may be helpful to proper interpretation, but it is the results of such excellent study—not a detailed report on the study itself—that will form and develop the exposition communicated to the church.[80] Expository preaching, taking its cue from the perspicuity of Scripture, aims at communicating the truth of the Word of God intelligibly; it is not “the unilluminating discussion of unreal problems in unintelligible language.”[81]

Many proponents of expository preaching encourage serial exposition of biblical books. Serial expository preaching is a series of consecutive sermons that explains an entire biblical book from beginning to end, but it may be divided into longer or shorter passages for exposition. An example of this approach is preaching through Paul’s letter to the Galatians in sequence from beginning to end, manageable passage by manageable passage, for three months. Advocates of this approach point out its advantages: in addition to communicating a Bible-centered message, expository preaching instructs church members in how to read and study the Bible for themselves; it unfolds biblical texts as they were divinely given; it makes the preacher’s decision easy as to what next biblical text should be preached; it constrains churches not to ignore or gloss over, but to wrestle with, problematic texts that arise through the course of exposition; and it is attentive to both the authorial intent of Scripture and the application of the biblical passage for the church today. As Sidney Greidanus underscores, “Expository preaching is ‘Bible-centered preaching.’ That is, it is handling the text ‘in such a way that its real and essential meaning as it existed in the mind of the particular Biblical writer and as it exists in the light of the over-all context of Scripture is made plain and applied to the present-day needs of the hearers.’”[82]

Such preaching enables the church to fulfill its ministry responsibility to proclaim the Word of God. The church should provide many other venues—e.g., Sunday school classes, community/small groups, one-on-one discipleship—for communicating this Word.

THE CHURCH ENGAGES NON-CHRISTIANS WITH THE GOSPEL

The recipients of the church’s proclamation of Scripture include not only the members of the church but also those who have not yet embraced Jesus Christ and become his faithful followers. Indeed, the church engages non-Christians with the gospel, to which ministry the pages of Scripture abundantly testify.[83]

During his earthly ministry, Jesus Christ intentionally engaged the Jewish people and not the Gentiles. “He came to his own” (John 1:11), as evidenced by the narrative of Zaccheus, about whom Jesus said, “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:9–10). His own instructions to the Twelve—“Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 10:5–6)—echoes his own parochial focus. Certainly, the Gospels narrate Jesus’ encounters with Samaritans and Gentiles—the woman at the well (John 4:1–42), the demon-possessed Gerasene (Mark 5:1–20), the Roman centurion (Matt. 8:5–12), the Canaanite woman (Matt. 15:21–28), the Samaritan leper (Luke 17:11–19)—but Jesus’ own attitude toward and comportment in such meetings (he was amazed at the faith of the centurion, for example) and his evident concentration on the people of Israel emphasize that his ministry among non-Jews must be viewed as unusual events that were harbingers of things to come. Unsurprisingly, then, the early church followed the pattern of their Lord in preaching the gospel and building disciples among the Jews first (Acts 1–11).

But this pattern was not to continue for long. Already in his teaching and ministry, Jesus had expressed deep concern for Samaritans and Gentiles. The climax of Jesus’ whole world missional perspective came with his Great Commission in which he ordered his disciples to “make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19). In one sense, then, the early church was misdirected in its exclusionary mission to the Jewish people; however, the hope at that time—a hope that was born and nurtured in the old covenant and continued by Jesus (23:37–39)—was that the people of Israel would turn to the Lord. As Peter expressed it in his appeal to his Jewish listeners, “Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, and that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all . . . things” (Acts 3:18–21). Ultimately, however, this hope, which was fully directed toward the Jews recognizing Jesus as their long awaited Messiah, was dashed on the rocks of their unbelief and rejection of him—all part of the divine design.[84]

Accordingly, Jesus called Saul to be “a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel” (Acts 9:15), sending him specifically to the Gentiles, “to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sin and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me” (26:16–18). To Peter was given a vision such that when he encountered the Gentile Cornelius, he explained, “God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean,” because “God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (10:28, 34–35). Next were “men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Hellenists also, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord” (11:20–21); thus was founded the first Gentile church in Antioch. As Christopher Wright concludes, “Jesus’ earthly ministry was launched by a movement that aimed at the restoration of Israel. But he himself launched a movement that aimed at the ingathering of the nations to the new messianic people of God. The initial impetus for his ministry was to call Israel back to their God. The subsequent impact of his ministry was a new community that called the nations to faith in the God of Israel.”[85]

Appropriately, “to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16) was the divinely planned order for the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the early church obeyed this sequence until the “mystery” became clear that “a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (11:25). Now is the period of the missional church’s focus on the Gentiles; now the church is composed mostly of Gentiles. This emphasis is not exclusionary, however, for as in Paul’s day, so now “there is a remnant [of Jews], chosen by grace” (11:5) to whom the church brings the good news of salvation.[86] Whenever this time period comes to an end, whenever the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, “in this way all Israel will be saved” (11:26). The church anticipates a marvelous future work of God involving many Jews who, reversing their previous rejection, will then recognize Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah.

Thus, the church engages in its work of sharing the good news, propelling itself in obedience to the Word of God, and being propelled by the Holy Spirit, into the uttermost parts of the earth to fulfill its mission until the Lord’s return. The “Lausanne Covenant” articulates the nature of this evangelistic ministry of the church:

To evangelize is to spread the good news that Jesus Christ died for our sins and was raised from the dead according to the Scriptures, and that as the reigning Lord he now offers the forgiveness of sins and the liberating gifts of the Spirit to all who repent and believe. Our Christian presence in the world is indispensable to evangelism, and so is that kind of dialogue whose purpose is to listen sensitively in order to understand. But evangelism itself is the proclamation of the historical, biblical Christ as Saviour and Lord, with a view to persuading people to come to him personally and so be reconciled to God. In issuing the gospel invitation we have no liberty to conceal the cost of discipleship. Jesus still calls all who would follow him to deny themselves, take up their cross, and identify themselves with his new community. The results of evangelism include obedience to Christ, incorporation into his Church and responsible service in the world.[87]

Accordingly, the church engages non-Christians with the gospel, and as its Lord commissioned it to engage in this ministry everywhere, “World evangelization requires the whole Church to take the whole gospel to the whole world. The Church is at the very centre of God’s cosmic purpose and is his appointed means of spreading the gospel.”[88]

THE CHURCH DISCIPLES ITS MEMBERS

That the church is called to disciple those who have embraced Jesus Christ through the gospel is abundantly clear from Scripture. Discipleship is explicitly commanded of the church as it engages in its missional enterprise (Matt. 28:19–20), an imperative that the early church obeyed (Acts 2:42). Accordingly, the apostle Paul described his ministry of proclaiming Christ as “warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ. For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me” (Col. 1:28–29). At times, Paul experienced frustration and heartache, as churches failed to progress toward maturity as they should have developed. Thus, he sadly addressed the church of Galatia as “my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you” (Gal. 4:19). Clearly, the goal of the church’s discipling is to produce wholly devoted and fully formed Christ-followers who are characterized by orthodoxy (sound doctrine), orthopraxis (right practice), and orthopatheia (proper sentiment).

Given such a lofty aim, it should come as no surprise that discipleship is a lifelong and multipronged intentional process. The church can never be done discipling its members, and it must adapt many resources and avenues in seeking to perform this task. Three elements already discussed—worship, preaching, and the church’s missional enterprise—are essential in this undertaking. Two more that also received extended treatment—baptism and the Lord’s Supper (see chapters 10 and 11)—are crucial elements as well. While many other means could be addressed—e.g., counseling, community groups, personal mentoring, life coaching—the focus of this section will be on two select ministries—the church’s educational ministry and community life—as key for carrying out its discipling responsibilities.

Christian Education

Though discipleship can never be reduced to teaching and learning, education is a very important aspect of this work. As James Smart insists, “The Church must teach, just as it must preach, or it will not be the Church. . . . Teaching belongs to the essence of the Church and a church that neglects this function of teaching has lost something that is indispensable to its nature as a church.”[89] Robert Pazmiño adds that “Christian education is a vital ministry that deserves our best efforts and can be a source of joy and renewal in the life of the Christian church. Without effective education, the faith is not faithfully passed on to the rising generations and Christians are not obedient to their educational commission (Matt. 28:18–20).”[90]

For education to avail for discipleship, it must be Christian education. But what does this mean? As James Estep emphasizes, “If education is to be Christian, it must be theologically informed on a variety of levels. ‘Theology is more than the content of Christian education; it is a process of instruction and discernment by which persons are educated in their identity, interpret the realities of their lives, and are sent into the world. . . . [This is] the task and vocation of practical theologians of education.’”[91] Such Christian education includes, among other things, a theologically informed purpose (for the glory of God, growth in the faith, and advancement of God’s kingdom), a theologically informed selection of content (from, for example, Scripture, theological tradition, and church history), and a theologically informed design (regarding the relationship between teacher and student, the educational environment, and instructional methods).[92] Such theologically robust education should benefit the church’s discipleship ministry in various ways, particularly by providing a pastoral focus:

Christian education is not simply education for education’s sake, nor is it merely driven by pragmatic necessities; rather it is a ministry of the church. . . . Education that seeks simply to impart knowledge or raise levels of cognition or awareness falls short of education as a calling to pastoral service within the community of faith. Christian educators must never forget that we are first pastors and then educators and that education serves the pastoral function of nurturing faith within the community of the church.[93]

Theologically rich Christian education contributes to the church’s ministry of discipleship.

According to Michael Anthony, Christian education for the purpose of discipleship takes place in three general formats. In formal educational settings like Sunday school classes, “learning is intentional, structured, and institutionalized by a set of predetermined learning objectives and methods primarily in a classroom environment.” In nonformal educational settings such as seminars or training sessions, “learning is intentional but not necessarily institutionalized like a school. Learning has objectives, but it is typically related to the performance of a task or to a piece of content.” In informal settings like home groups, “one learns by living in and experiencing a culture or society. Learning may or may not be regarded as intentional, but it does take place. In fact, socialization is often the most life-changing learning format in any setting.” Importantly, “Education in the church occurs on all three levels.”[94] Additionally, “Beyond the local level the local church cooperates with other churches to carry on specific aspects of their instructional task. For example, theological seminaries and divinity schools equip pastor-teachers and others to instruct people in the Word.”[95] Any and all of these formats and their various permutations—if intentionally planned and executed, theologically oriented, and empowered by the Holy Spirit—may serve the church’s educational ministry for the purpose of producing wholly devoted, fully mature disciples of Jesus Christ.

A church’s educational ministry consists of several foundational elements. Concerning its goal, this ministry is intentionally directed toward making disciples of Jesus Christ. Its objectives include indoctrination, the formation of doctrinally sound and theologically driven disciples (orthodoxy); character building, the formation of Christlike disciples who faithfully and obediently engage in good works for the glory of God out of love for Christ and others (orthopraxis); worldview development, the formation of gospel-oriented disciples in terms of their feelings, assessment of moral and social issues, and purpose for living (orthopatheia); and ministry preparation, the formation of missional disciples who are able to evangelize, disciple, show mercy, and engage in other church ministries.

To accomplish its task, the educational ministry provides a full-orbed agenda of discipleship opportunities, which may include new members orientation; Sunday school classes for children, youth, and adults; men’s fraternities and women’s groups; specific seminars and training opportunities (e.g., spiritual gift identification and development, leadership training, church safety policies and practices); one-on-one and small-group mentoring and accountability; intergenerational relationships;[96] family-oriented ministries;[97] church-wide retreats; and a plethora of other opportunities. Regular evaluation of existing educational offerings in light of its goal and objectives will help the educational ministry maintain and strengthen opportunities that are bearing fruit, either rehabilitate or drop others that are no longer needed, and initiate still others that will enhance the church’s making of disciples.

Community Life

Michael Anthony’s third format for educational discipleship—informal settings of socialization—deserves more attention as it dovetails with one aspect of the covenantal attribute of the church. When the church as covenant community fosters life together among its members, it contributes to their development as wholly devoted and fully formed disciples of Jesus Christ. Some general notions in which this community life finds expression have been touched on above; here I will provide some details about the κοινωνία (koinōnia) or fellowship that should characterize the church.[98]

Specific celebrations that build community life and foster discipleship should be a regular part of the church’s rhythm. As Paul urges, “If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together” (1 Cor. 12:26; cf. Rom. 12:15). Taking the latter moments of joy first, the church celebrates births, marriages, and important career milestones. The birth of a child is not only an occasion to rejoice in the arrival of a new divine image-bearer; it is also an opportunity for the church (and the families of the newborns) to dedicate itself (themselves) to nurturing this infant in the gospel ministry. In paedobaptist churches, this event is celebrated through the baptism of the infant. In credobaptist churches, this event is often acknowledged by a baby dedication.[99] In the former churches, infant baptism may be seen as salvifically significant (it regenerates the infant) or covenantally significant (it incorporates the infant into the church community). In the latter churches, baby dedication is neither salvifically nor covenantally significant; rather, it marks out infants as specifically consecrated to the Lord and commits both family and church members to important ministries in their lives.

Marriage is another joyful occasion celebrated by the church (and often in its building). Marriage is not an ordinance of the church because it is first a creation ordinance; that is, God created gendered human beings for the purpose that (most) men and women would be married (and have children; Gen. 1:28). Because marriage is a creation ordinance, the church rejoices that the divine plan is being fulfilled every time a man and a woman enter into a marriage covenant—whether the people so joined together are Christians or not. The New Testament adds a specific requirement for Christ-followers: they are to be “married . . . in the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39), that is, a Christian is not permitted to marry a non-Christian (cf. 2 Cor. 6:14) but is to marry a Christ-follower. In the other two cases—marriage joining together a Christian man and a Christian woman or a non-Christian man and a non-Christian woman—the church rejoices.[100]

Other motives for celebration present themselves regularly to the church—national holidays, school graduations, promotions at work, retirements, significant social/political/military/educational achievements, and the like. The church celebrates these milestones, honoring those who have worked hard and achieved much, but it does so circumspectly. For example, when celebrating national holidays, the church is cognizant of the fact that its ultimate citizenship is not of this world. Furthermore, it realizes that it may have in its midst Christ-followers of other nationalities for whom such days do not have special importance. This should not detract from the church’s commemoration of such occasions, but it does call for celebration that is proper. These and other similar celebrations build community life and foster discipleship.

Other moments of community life are not joyful celebrations as those just discussed. Sickness, trials and suffering, and death are realities that the church confronts in its “already–not yet” existence. The desire is that its strong community life will somewhat ease the pain encountered in such trying circumstances, further the process of discipleship, and stimulate hope.

The church responds to these trying circumstances with the grace and resources of God, the encouragement in Christ, and the comfort of the Holy Spirit. Specifically, the elders of the church bear responsibility to pray for the healing of the sick (James 5:13–17), though certainly such intercession is not reserved for church leaders. Those who have suffered should be available to comfort those who are currently suffering, according to Paul’s insight into the “God of all comfort,”

who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too. If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer. Our hope for you is unshaken, for we know that as you share in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort. (2 Cor. 1:3–7)

Practically speaking, when the church seeks to offer comfort to those who are hurting, it should avoid certain things and do others. In terms of what not to do, church members should not pretend that they know exactly how the sufferers are feeling, should not imagine that they know why the others are suffering, and should not minimize the pain and suffering that is occurring by insisting that it is not as bad as it seems. In terms of what to do, church members should realize that sometimes the best help that can be given—for example, just being present, or listening without speaking—will seem like no help at all. The church should also remind those who are suffering that God himself is not unacquainted with suffering and is good enough and powerful enough to bring good out of the very worst evil.[101]

Ultimately, all sickness, pain, and suffering will lead to death, and the church faces this most trying circumstance as it conducts funerals.[102] Funerals should be occasions for the eulogy for the dead—a rehearsal of their good character and works. The deceased is praised for being a good husband or wife, a good father or mother, a good son or daughter, a good citizen. Thanksgiving for achievements is also offered: he was a good teacher or lawyer, she was a fine doctor or businesswoman; he was a good neighbor, she was a close colleague; his baseball coaching and her volunteering at a halfway house are applauded. These good words offer comfort to the loved ones of the deceased. Funerals should also be occasions to call the living to think circumspectly about their own lives.

Additional opportunities present themselves at the funerals of Christ-followers. Though grief is expressed at the loss of the deceased, the church acknowledges that they are now with the Lord in heaven and underscores the hope of the resurrection. When appropriate, the message of the gospel is communicated so that the same hope may be offered to those present. At Christian funerals a strong sense of celebration—of God’s plan of salvation, of Christ’s death and resurrection to accomplish the plan, of the Holy Spirit’s powerful work to apply salvation, of these Christ-followers’ faithfulness, obedience, and service to the Lord—is also present in the midst of mourning and tears.[103]

Through such celebrations (births, marriages, achievements and milestones) and trying circumstances (sickness, trials and suffering, deaths) the church relies on and builds strong community life and fosters discipleship.

THE CHURCH CARES FOR PEOPLE

After his instruction about sowing and reaping (Gal. 6:7–8), Paul gives the following command to the church: “And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith” (vv. 9–10). Christians are to persevere in doing good toward others, both unbelievers and, especially, those in the church. Thus, another important ministry of the church is introduced—the church cares for people, both outside and inside of it. I will explore various aspects of this caring ministry, beginning with some thoughts on prayer, moving to a presentation on giving, and followed by a discussion of the church’s care for its own members and for the poor and marginalized outside of the church. In keeping with John’s emphasis, this aspect of the church’s ministry could be called “love”: the church loves people in obedience to the new commandment (1 John 2:7–11), in imitation of Christ (3:16–18), and in response to the loving character and activity of God (4:7–21).

Prayer

I have already briefly addressed the church’s prayers of praise and thanksgiving under its ministry of worship. These prayers have the triune God as their sole focus of attention, though thanksgiving for his mighty acts toward people through rescue and transformation may constitute aspects of them (e.g., Eph. 1:3–14). A second type of prayer, as always directed toward God but now concentrated on people, comprises another of the church’s responsibilities: “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1 Tim. 2:1–2). The church should be characterized by much prayer for people.

The church’s prayers for its members include supplication that God would grant a “spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe” (Eph. 1:17–19; cf. 3:14–19). The church’s prayers for its members also include intercession, “that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God” (Phil. 1:9–11; cf. Col. 1:9–14). Prayers for the healing of sickness (James 5:13–15) and general well-being and good health in both body and soul are also made (3 John 2). Other intercessory motives include divine guidance (Acts 13:3; 14:23; Rom. 1:10; 15:32; 1 Thess. 3:10); supernatural intervention and deliverance (Rom. 15:30–31; 2 Cor. 1:8–11; Phil. 1:19; Philem. 22; e.g., Acts 12:6–17, esp. v. 12); and boldness, empowerment, and clarity in communicating the gospel (Acts 4:29–31; Eph. 6:18–20; Col. 4:3–4; 2 Thess. 3:1; Philem. 6). Furthermore, the church offers prayers of thanksgiving to God for its members’ “work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope” (1 Thess. 1:2–3; Eph. 1:15; 2 Thess. 1:3–4; Philem. 4–5), their partnership in the ministry of the gospel (Phil. 1:5; cf. 1 Thess. 1:6–10), and God’s gracious election and powerful work to bring about their salvation (2 Thess. 2:13–14; cf. 1 Thess. 1:4–5).

Though the church rightly directs its prayers to God on behalf of its own members, it also makes entreaties and requests for those outside: for its enemies and persecutors (Luke 6:28; e.g., Luke 23:34 and Acts 7:60); for the leaders of governments, that peace may dominate in society (1 Tim. 2:2); and for those who do not yet know Christ to embrace the gospel (exemplified by Paul’s prayer for his own people; Rom. 10:1). In these prayers the church expresses its concern for all people.

Giving

We need look no further than the church of Jerusalem at its very outset for an outstanding example of a church’s caring ministry through giving. “And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need” (Acts 2:44–45). The fruit of repentance, the forgiveness of sin, and the reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 38) was a generosity that permeated the early church and benefited all of its many members. Luke provides another snapshot of this generous community care:

Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of land or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. (Acts 4:32–35)

Because of a profound sense of unity and a genuine selflessness, the earliest disciples who had the means to do so sold their possessions, belongings, even their houses and parcels of land and through the apostles distributed the proceeds of the sales to other church members who were in need. This was no communist system imposed from the outside or even by the apostles as the church’s leaders; rather, such compassion was because “great grace was upon them all.” The church of Jerusalem so cared for its members that not one had any need. Moreover, there seems to have been no sense of entitlement nor any feeling of begrudging assistance.

Luke follows this generic description with a specific example: “Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet” (Acts 4:36–37). Barnabas’s encouraging act of sacrificial giving is immediately contrasted with Ananias and Sapphira’s discouraging charade of generosity (Acts 5:1–11). The problem with the couple’s action was certainly not their sale of the property; under other conditions, this would have been a praiseworthy sacrificial deed on par with the compassionate giving of others in the Jerusalem community. Nor was the problem their decision to give a portion of the proceeds of the sale and retain ownership of the rest; this choice was at their complete discretion (v. 4).[104] The problem was instead their feigned generosity: Ananias and Sapphira, in the effort “to gain a reputation for greater generosity” than they deserved, made it appear that the amount they gave was the entirety of the proceeds from the sale of their property, thus attempting to deceive the church (as well as the Holy Spirit; vv. 3, 4).[105] False munificence in the midst of a self-sacrificing community and in the presence of an infinitely generous God is dreadfully wrong. The church must exercise care toward people, but even more importantly it is to exercise care that is genuinely generous, gracious, and self-effacing.

The church of Jerusalem, though initially able to provide for the poor in its midst, was later in dire need of outside help. Various Gentile churches dedicated themselves to collecting money for its relief. One was the church of Corinth, and in writing to this church (2 Corinthians 8–9) Paul discusses some important aspects of giving while using the churches of Macedonia as examples of outstanding generosity. Among the key points about generous giving that Paul presents are the following: giving is a ministry of the church associated with doxa, or the glory of God; thus, it is appropriate that the church, which is characterized as doxological, should engage in giving. Paul specifically notes that this ministry is “for the glory of the Lord himself” (8:19) and explains that the approving recipients of financial help “will glorify God because of your submission flowing from your confession of the gospel of Christ and the generosity of your contribution for them and for all others” (9:13). Such “glory giving” is specifically witnessed in the praise and thanksgiving directed toward God because of the church’s giving (9:11–12). As just noted, Paul also underscores that giving is an act of submission that results from the confession of the gospel; that is, as the church lives out its profession of the good news, it becomes a giving community. In doing so, it imitates its Lord: “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich” (8:9).[106] God is a generous, giving God (9:9), and the church is likewise to be generous and giving.

Moreover, God is a gracious God, and so the church engages in giving as an “act of grace” (2 Cor. 8:6, 7, 19). This expression has a dual focus: first, God provides grace that leads to generous giving (8:1, 2, 14; 9:14); indeed, such grace leads to the church having a sufficiency for giving: “And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work” (9:8). Paul illustrates such sufficient divine provision with agricultural and gastronomical images: “He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness. You will be enriched in every way to be generous in every way” (9:10–11). In one sense, then, the church is a passive instrument for divine grace, a conduit through which flow financial provisions from the infinitely generous God to his people in need. Second, the church engages in this “act of grace” through human obedience and faithfulness. In this sense, the church endeavors to progress toward abundance in its giving. Appropriately, Paul presents this challenge to the church: “But as you excel in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in all earnestness, and in our love for you—see that you excel in this act of grace also” (8:7). Such pursuit of excellence is fostered by regular teaching on giving, orienting new Christians to the concept and principles of stewardship, challenging maturing members to give (and live) sacrificially, budgeting and spending wisely, and the like. Of course, this second “act of grace” depends upon and is a response to the first “act of grace.”

Church care through giving is appropriately referred to as a “ministry for the saints” (2 Cor. 9:1) in that it affords “relief” (8:4) by “supplying the needs of the saints” (9:12; cf. Rom. 12:13). Such giving offers “proof before the churches” that the caring church’s “love is also genuine” (2 Cor. 8:24, 8; cf. 1 John 3:17). It also achieves a certain degree of fairness: “For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of fairness your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness. As it is written, ‘Whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack’” (2 Cor. 8:13–15). The church that today gives generously for the sake of others may be the beneficiary of reciprocal generosity when its own need comes in the future.

Paul gives several concrete instructions as to how the church should engage in this ministry. Giving is not a ministry in which the church engages “reluctantly or under compulsion” in times of prosperity only; rather, its giving should be “cheerful,” voluntary, and sacrificial (2 Cor. 9:7), as exemplified by the churches of Macedonia: “For in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord, begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in this relief of the saints—and this, not as we expected, but they gave themselves first to the Lord and then by the will of God to us” (8:2–5). Individual church members should be purposeful and give in accordance with the church’s intention, as Paul emphasized elsewhere: “on the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come” (1 Cor. 16:1–2). This collection and distribution of money must be carefully and responsibly administered by multiple bona fide officers of the church or their representatives (8:16–24). Paul expressed a reasonable concern about this process: “We take this course so that no one should blame us about this generous gift that is being administered by us, for we aim at what is honorable not only in the Lord’s sight but also in the sight of man” (8:20–21). Squandering the church’s giving through mismanagement or embezzlement, misdirecting money by not honoring the intentions for which it was given, and failing to report accurately both incoming and outgoing funds will dishonor Jesus Christ and bring reproach upon the church.[107] But when the church gives in accordance with biblical instruction, it engages in an act of grace that glorifies God, adorns the gospel, reflects the self-giving of its Lord, helps people in need, proves the genuineness of its love, and achieves fairness.

Paul’s instructions about the giving ministry of the church are in the context of his discussion about churches providing financial assistance for the church of Jerusalem. Scripture indicates other outlets for this giving, three of which will be the focus of my attention: the support of pastors, care for church members (especially long-term assistance for widows), and help for the poor and marginalized.

Financial Support of Pastors

After his extended discussion of the qualifications for the office of elder (1 Tim. 3:1–7), Paul instructs the church to provide generous support for their pastors: “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and ‘The laborer deserves his wages’” (1 Tim. 5:17–18; cf. Gal. 6:6; 1 Cor. 9:6–18). All elders exercise leadership in the church, and they all must be able to teach. As they labor in their ministries, some elders distinguish themselves through outstanding leadership; this is especially true of those who dedicate themselves to the proclamation of the Word of God through preaching regularly and/or teaching extensively. With respect to these hardworking leaders/preachers/teachers, Paul directs that they “be considered worthy of double honor,” intended as both respect and remuneration.

Turning to the Old Testament (Deut. 25:4), Paul offers support for this church responsibility. Muzzling an ox while it is working in the fields prevents it from eating the grain it is threshing (to the advantage of the owner of the field), but it also cuts off the ox’s supply of food with which to nourish itself. The deuteronomic law prohibited this practice; the ox while threshing should be allowed to reap the benefits of its hard work. In a similar way, withholding proper honor from an elder who works hard leading the church and proclaiming the Word of God may save the congregation some money, but it also means that the elder is not supported; he receives no payment for his efforts. Paul prohibits this practice: the elder who discharges his responsibilities of leadership and proclamation well should reap the benefits of his hard work; indeed, he should receive double support. Moreover, Paul cites Jesus Christ himself—either a dominical saying, or a quotation from the Gospel of Luke—as further support. In its Lukan context, Jesus’ saying provides support for his instructions to the seventy-two (alternatively, seventy) disciples engaged in their itinerant ministry: they are not to concern themselves about providing for their daily needs; rather, their hosts are to provide the food and drink that they require, “for the laborer deserves his wages” (Luke 10:7). Paul’s strong biblical and dominical support for his command underscores the importance of the church’s generous support for its pastors. The church must provide substantial financial support for them.

Realistically speaking, some churches do well in this ministry while others seem to overlook Paul’s instruction and its proper application. Tragically (though often expressed humorously), a church may consider keeping its pastor humble as one of its responsibilities, and an application of this principle is that it keeps its pastor poor. Some justification for this perspective may be offered: the church wants to prevent its leader from becoming greedy so as to help him avoid disqualification from leadership (1 Tim. 3:3). But the point is that a qualified elder is “not a lover of money” (1 Tim. 3:3) nor “greedy for gain” (Titus 1:7); so the church’s alleged warrant for its mistreatment collapses. Whatever the reason may be for its misconduct, the church must provide financially for its pastor(s).

Paul’s instruction must be contextualized and its application will vary from church to church. Smaller churches that have quite limited resources must be certain to provide sufficient support for their pastors. This support may take on forms other than direct salary, including the provision of a parsonage, use of a church vehicle, regular gifts of groceries, free use of a church member’s vacation home, and the like. Wherever possible, such churches should make arrangements to separate what they are able to pay into salary, ministry expenses, health benefits, housing allowance (for those legally ordained), workers’ compensation, and retirement; giving the entire amount as salary only increases the pastor’s tax liability and should be avoided. Larger churches that have sizeable resources must avoid the common temptation to cut back on pastoral salaries and benefits. A rule of thumb for such churches is to estimate its average member’s salary and double it to determine pastoral salaries (accounting for differences in ministerial experience and tenure, specific church responsibilities, education, and the like) while providing the above-mentioned benefits as well.

Assistance for Those in Need

In addition to supporting its pastors, the church must care for its members. My approach in this section will be to look at a specific case of member care—long-term assistance for widows—and, after discussing that responsibility, draw out principles from that paradigm for the church’s care of its members in general.[108]

Paul dedicates a lengthy (though often overlooked)[109] discussion to the church’s responsibility toward its widowed members:

Honor widows who are truly widows. But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show godliness to their own household and to make some return to their parents, for this is pleasing in the sight of God. She who is truly a widow, left all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day, but she who is self-indulgent is dead even while she lives. Command these things as well, so that they may be without reproach. But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work. But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith. Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not. So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander. For some have already strayed after Satan. If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are truly widows. (1 Tim. 5:3–16)

Paul’s instructions to the church about its concern for and treatment of widows is reminiscent of Old Testament presentations of God as the “protector of widows” (Ps. 68:5; cf. Deut. 10:18), its correlative warnings of recrimination against anyone who dares to mistreat such vulnerable women (Ex. 22:22–24; Deut. 27:19), and its promises of blessing for the people of Israel if they imitate Yahweh in caring for widows in their midst (Isa. 1:17; Jer. 22:3–4). Jesus expressed this divine compassion toward widows both in raising a widow’s son from the dead (Luke 7:11–17) and, as he was being crucified, in delegating the responsibility for his own mother’s well-being to his disciple John (John 19:25–27). The church of Jerusalem sensed this same responsibility as it cared for the widows among its members and was blessed for this ministry (Acts 6:1–7).

Against this background, Paul had to address some complications that had arisen in the Ephesian church’s treatment of its widowed members. He does so by framing his instructions in terms of the notion of “household”—both the figurative “household of faith,” or the church, and the actual “household” of the family. He also distinguishes two types of widows: those “who are truly widows” (1 Tim. 5:3, 5) and those who pretend to be widows.

A genuine widow is one who is “left all alone” (1 Tim. 5:5) because her husband, the source of her financial provision, has died. Given Greco-Roman society, this woman could not become gainfully employed, nor was there a public welfare system in place to provide support for her. In addition to being financially bereft, a true widow is one who is wholly devoted to God and dedicated to prayer (v. 5).[110] Becoming more specific, Paul describes a true widow as one who is over sixty years old, having been sexually faithful throughout her married life to her husband, and possessing a stellar reputation because of her good works, which include raising a family, hospitality toward outsiders, servanthood, concrete aid for those in dire need, and devotion to many other good deeds (vv. 9–10). Women who qualify as being true widows are to be honored—both in terms of respect for them as widows and for their devoted service to Jesus Christ and in terms of financial support—by the church. The church is financially responsible for its elders (v. 17) and is to enroll genuine widows on its list of those whom it supports; true widows so enrolled constitute “a definite, openly recognized group qualified to receive financial assistance.”[111] Accordingly, the church as the “household of faith” is to take care of its own truly widowed members.

Tragically, the church of Ephesus received many requests for financial aid by women who were not to be considered true widows. Because it had limited resources and was thus unable to support a large number of people, the church could find itself burdened by these many widows. In many cases, however, the church’s support was not needed, for the widows had children or grandchildren who could take care of them financially. Indeed, Paul instructs the children and grandchildren of these women to act in a godly way toward their own “household” or family members. Specifically, they are to return to their mothers and grandmothers some of the support that they as children and grandchildren received as they were being raised. Pointedly, Paul underscores that such household support “is pleasing in the sight of God” (1 Tim. 5:4).[121] Moreover, widows who can be financially sustained by their families should forgo requesting assistance from the church.[113]

In contrast with the true widow, Paul describes the other type of widow as a self-indulgent pleasure seeker who is consumed with comfort and luxury rather than with the things of God and of others (1 Tim. 5:6).[114] Moreover, she is “younger” than sixty years old (vv. 9, 11, 14) and may be enticed by her sexual passions to abandon her profession of faith in Christ and get remarried (vv. 11–12). With too much time on her hands, this widow becomes an idler, gossiper, and busybody (v. 13). The apostle’s instructions for these younger widows is to get married, raise a family, and manage their households; in so doing, they will avoid slander by and straying after Satan (vv. 14–15). Paul seems to be saying that if these women who profess to be devoted and chaste widows are supported by the church, yet they turn out to be self-absorbed and sexually active pretenders, the charge of hypocrisy and falsity will be leveled against them and the church—and it will prove to be true, bringing reproach on them and the church (v. 7).

Paul emphasizes the family’s responsibility to provide financial support for its own widowed members. Failure of a Christ-follower to supply economic resources for his own household signals that “he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim. 5:8), for even pagan Gentiles know well enough to support the members of their own family. For Christian households to do less courts blame and criticism; rather, they are to excel in this good work. When they do so, the household of faith, the church, unburdened by illegitimate requests for financial aid, is freed up to “care for those who are truly widows” (v. 16).

Intriguingly, the New Testament devotes a significant section of one of its letters about the ministry of the church to this issue of widow care, yet rarely do theological treatments of ecclesiology even mention the matter. Some of this neglect has to do with the differences between the American culture and Greco-Roman society with regard to their respective financial resources for the poor and marginalized. Widows in the first century could not work and could not rely upon a public welfare system like Social Security or financial payments from a company retirement plan. In this way, widows in evangelical churches in twenty-first-century America have a great advantage over their counterparts in the first-century Greco-Roman world. At the same time, if doomsday scenarios about Social Security work themselves out in reality, and if the mismanagement of retirement portfolios and cutbacks in retirement benefits continue, evangelical churches in America may face circumstances not that far removed from those of the first century. When widows present themselves to the church and request financial support because they are unable to live on their meager monthly Social Security check and the CEO of their former company has squandered or embezzled all of their retirement savings, what should the church’s response be?

Paul’s seemingly ancient words provide sufficient instruction from which the contemporary church can construct its proper response. First, a determination must be made as to whether these widows are true widows or not. Paul details the characteristics of both types of widows, and the church would do well to follow his descriptions and apply his standards to discern if the women are true widows or not. The church should feel no financial obligation to the second type of widow; indeed, it should not allow itself to become burdened in this way. At the same time, the church does have a responsibility to encourage these widows to be devoted to God and to others and not to be absorbed with themselves. For those who can be sexually continent, Paul’s counsel elsewhere to remain single is to be applied (1 Cor. 7:8–9, 39–40). For widows who cannot control their sexual passions, Paul’s encouragement for them to remarry and devote themselves to their new family (1 Tim. 5:14; 1 Cor. 7:8–9) is appropriate.[115]

A second determination to be made involves which household should be responsible for these widows. The actual household of the widow’s family—her children and grandchildren (or, by extension, her parents if they are still alive and financially solvent, and her nieces, nephews, cousins, and other relatives)—has the primary responsibility to care for her. In communication with these family members, the church should make it clear that they are to provide financial support for her and urge them to do so. If, however, she has no relatives, or if the Christian members of her family refuse to fulfill their duties toward her, then the church must consider this widow to be its financial responsibility. This support should be part of the church’s annual budget, and provision should be made ahead of time for women members whose husbands are in failing health and who appear to be proper candidates for widow care. The church may approach this ministry with a twofold awareness: care for true widows reflects the compassion of God the defender of widows and brings his blessing, and it enhances the church’s reputation as it bears a countercultural testimony.

The reality in most American churches today is that widows do not require their financial assistance. This does not mean, however, that churches do not bear the responsibility for economic support of certain other members. Most churches are aware of acute financial needs in their midst and are often inundated by requests for assistance—brought either directly by needy members or indirectly by others who are apprised of the needs of those members. Often, churches are puzzled about how to handle these requests fairly. Using the church’s care for its widowed members as a paradigm, I will now draw out applications for the church’s care of its members in general.

The first application is that the church should help only members who are truly in need. Because it is a gracious and compassionate place, the church rightly and thankfully attracts people who are needy—spiritually indeed, but also socially, ethically, physically, professionally, and financially. In addition, its members may lose their jobs, go through a divorce, find themselves in failing health, and encounter financial difficulties in other ways. Through conversation with those members (and their families, when possible), a determination must be made as to the extent of their need and whether any family members are able to provide the necessary assistance. Where such aid is forthcoming, the church does not bear responsibility for them; the “household” of the family does. In addition, the church may determine that those requesting aid are not truly in need of it. For example, they may qualify for government assistance but have failed to apply for it from the proper programs or agencies. Or they may be able to work but prefer that others help them—a case confronted by Paul and denounced in no uncertain terms (2 Thess. 3:6–12). In the first case, the church can help its members receive the available assistance; in the second case, the church must urge its members “to earn their own living” (v. 12). Enabling dependent behavior is to be avoided, and church assistance in these cases only perpetuates the dependency problem. However, in the case in which members are truly bereft of help from others and are genuinely in need, the church has the obligation to provide financial support. If the church budget does not make provision for such money, a regular benevolent offering may be taken (perhaps in conjunction with the Lord’s Supper) to supply the resources for this member care. When possible, a direct payment for specific goods and services needed—paying the mortgage or electric bill, purchasing groceries—should be made.[116]

A second application is that the church should primarily give assistance to those members who are most devoted to the Lord and have an outstanding reputation for good works. Granted, a measurement of such “qualifications” is at times problematic, but such a determination can often be made without undo complication. The application is focused on protecting the testimony both of those who receive assistance and of the church. When church members who are supported by the church faithfully obey and serve the Lord, both they and the church gain respect and are held in high esteem. In the opposite scenario, when they waste their lives and compromise their testimony, the charge of hypocrisy and falsity may be leveled against them and the church—and it will prove to be true, bringing reproach on both. The church must avoid risking its reputation, and careful selection of those to whom it will give financial support goes a long way toward maintaining the testimony it has worked hard to develop.

In summary, the church cares for people—both its members and those outside the church—by praying, financially supporting its pastor(s), and providing assistance for those who are truly in need.

THE CHURCH IS FOR AND AGAINST THE WORLD

In addition to these many ministries—worship, proclamation, missional endeavors, discipleship, and member care—the church has the responsibility to engage the world at large. Jesus himself said to his followers,

You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet. You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. (Matt. 5:13–16)

This engagement of the world has particular application in terms of helping the poor and marginalized.[117] James affirms that “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world” (James 1:27). He follows this affirmation with an illustration of an absurd situation: “If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled,’ without giving them the things they needed for the body, what good is that?” (2:15–16). Such a lack of genuine concern, demonstrated by an absence of concrete works to bring help, means that the faith of the person not acting is dead (vv. 14, 17). John pictures a similar scenario and makes an urgent application: “Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth” (1 John 3:17–18). Accordingly, the familiar refrain “the church is to be in the world but not of the world” should be expanded to include “the church is for the world” (and, as we will see, at times “the church is against the world”).

The church’s engagement of the world with particular concern for those in need stems first from the fact that its members are called to carry out the cultural mandate; the church has a responsibility to ready its people to obey this mandate in a biblically and theologically informed manner. The mandate is set forth in the narrative of the creation of human beings in the divine image: “God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion’” (Gen. 1:28). Accordingly, the cultural mandate consists of both procreation and vocation. The fruitful multiplication of the human species is clearly seen in the subsequent chapters of Genesis, beginning with the union of Adam and Eve that produces the first human offspring, Cain and Abel (Gen. 4:1–2), and continuing with the list of descendants, first of Adam, then of Noah, and finally of Shem (Genesis 5; 10; 11). The exercise of dominion is also clearly noted in these chapters: shepherding and farming (Gen. 4:2), building cities (vv. 16–17), tending livestock, musical artistry, and fashioning tools (vv. 20–22)—these human endeavors were the beginning of the fulfillment of the cultural mandate for all human beings to engage in civilization building. This building of civilization could be described in more contemporary terms, as including politics, education, other arts (performance, visual), medicine and health care, athletics, science and technology, and economics. Furthermore, because this world is fallen (Genesis 3) and thus sin-stained and susceptible to disasters of all kinds (human evil, systemic evil, natural evil, Satanic and demonic evil; Genesis 4—Revelation 20), the human vocation is often warped and in need of other structures that intervene to minimize or relieve misery, poverty, marginalization, injustice, crime, financial failure, and the like. All human beings qua human beings, as divine image-bearing citizens of the created earth, bear the responsibility to build the “city of man” and overcome its dark side.

The church aids its members in their responsibility by inculcating in them a biblical and theological worldview with which to engage in fulfilling this mandate, specifically in two ways: with regard to the aspect of procreation, the church champions a “culture of life” over against a “culture of death,”[118] prepares its members to value highly the institution of matrimony, preaches about the biblical affirmations concerning marriage and the family, equips its members to be good fathers and mothers, joins parents in nurturing their children in the faith, advocates for and supports adoption of orphans,[119] and much more. Concerning the aspect of vocation, the church urges its members to view their talents and abilities as gifts from God for the service of others, helps them to live and work out of a heart of compassion, applauds and supports those who sense the divine call to be Christ-followers in the marketplace, exposes and denounces the world’s sin while pointing out the ways of righteousness,[120] emphasizes and models both the mercy and the justice of God, encourages its members to imitate the love of God in Christ through concretes acts of love, and much more.

Given this framework, Christ-followers are, first, human beings who are obligated to fulfill the cultural mandate. As such, Christians participate in the political arena, teach school, perform in orchestras and create sculptures, map the human genome, develop computer systems, manage stock portfolios, manufacture hybrid cars, sell shoes, build houses, raise beef and milk cows and grow corn, compete as Olympic athletes, design skyscrapers, and the like. Moved with concern for the disenfranchised of this sin-sick world, they as human beings also engage in hurricane relief, fight against the AIDS epidemic, seek cures for cancer, provide clothes for refugees, feed the hungry, fight against genocide, teach the illiterate to read, recycle plastic and paper for conservation of natural resources, protest government corruption, fight for (biblically sanctioned) human rights,[121] and other such acts of compassionate intervention. As they endeavor to provide such tangible aid for others, they realize that their brothers and sisters according to creation are being helped—and this is pleasing to the Lord who has created all human beings equally in his image.[122] The church provides encouragement, instruction, accountability, resources, and spiritual formation for the execution of its members’ endeavors. In these and many other ways, the church and its members are for the world and against (the sinful corruption of) the world.[123]

As devoted disciples of Jesus Christ, Christians have an added dimension of responsibility that goes well beyond the divinely given cultural mandate. They are also given the “Great Commandment” (Matt. 22:37–38) and the “Great Commission” (28:19–20); thus, loving neighbors and making disciples are responsibilities incumbent on Christ-followers. These specifically and uniquely Christian endeavors do not replace the cultural mandate to engage in civilization building, but are in addition to that basic human endeavor. And the church shows its members how to obediently and faithfully carry out these responsibilities.

Most importantly, the church’s responsibility to engage the world with particular concern to care for the poor and marginalized may be viewed as flowing from its embrace of the good news of Jesus Christ. That is, no disjuncture is promoted or permitted between the uniquely Christian responsibilities to connect missionally with the world and the general responsibilities to build civilization and stand against its dark side.[124] The apostles promoted this conjunction: in the midst of clarifying the gospel of grace and protecting it from harmful accretions, Paul voices the sole instruction urged upon him by the apostles: “Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do” (Gal. 2:10). The gospel and compassionate assistance go together. As the Gospel Coalition appropriately affirms,

God is concerned not only for the salvation of souls but also for the relief of poverty, hunger, and injustice. The gospel opens our eyes to the fact that all our wealth (even wealth for which we worked hard) is ultimately an unmerited gift from God. Therefore the person who does not generously give away his or her wealth to others is not merely lacking in compassion, but is unjust. . . . We cannot look at the poor and the oppressed and callously call them to pull themselves out of their own difficulty. Jesus did not treat us that way. The gospel replaces superiority toward the poor with mercy and compassion. Christian churches must work for justice and peace in their neighborhoods through service even as they call individuals to conversion and the new birth.[125]

Specifically, Christopher Wright advocates “a cross-centered theology of mission”: “the cross is the unavoidable center of our mission. All Christian mission flows from the cross—as its source, its power, and as that which defines its scope. It is vital that we see the cross as central and integral to every aspect of holistic, biblical mission, that is, of all we do in the name of the crucified and risen Jesus.” Whether the church and its members are engaged in preaching the gospel, feeding the hungry, working to right an injustice, or teaching English as a second language to immigrants, its theological warrant for its mission is the cross. Wright continues, “Bluntly, we need a holistic gospel because the world is in a holistic mess. And by God’s incredible grace we have a gospel big enough to redeem all that sin and evil has touched. And every dimension of that good news is good news utterly and only because of the blood of Christ on the cross.”[126]

Accordingly, the church is for the world—encouraging its members to faithfully obey the cultural mandate to build civilization while loving neighbors and making disciples—and against the world, helping its members to be compassionately critical of and justly opposed to all that in this fallen world is tainted by sin and in rebellion against Jesus Christ, head of the world and head of the church.

These, then, are the ministries of the church for which it has been sufficiently and gracious equipped by the gifts of the Holy Spirit: worship of the triune God; proclamation of the Word of God; engagement of non-Christians with the gospel; discipleship of church members through education and community life; care for people through prayer, giving, support of pastor(s), and assistance for those in need; and engagement both for and against the world.

___________________

[1]Traditionally, the discussion of spiritual gifts has been placed under the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, and my colleague in this series, Graham Cole, treats this topic in He Who Gives Life: The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, Foundations of Evangelical Theology (Wheaton, IL, Crossway, 2007).

[2]This affirmation is not meant to exclude other important purposes for spiritual gifts. The exercise of miraculous gifts served to indicate or confirm the apostles of Jesus Christ (Heb. 2:4; 2 Cor. 12:12; e.g., Acts 2:43; 3:1–10; 4:14, 29–30, 33), though such miraculous activity was certainly not confined to the apostles (e.g., Acts 6:8; 8:5–7; Gal. 3:5; 1 Cor. 1:7). According to Grudem, spiritual gifts “also give a foretaste of the age to come. . . . Just as the Holy Spirit himself is in this age a ‘down payment’ . . . of the fuller work of the Holy Spirit within us in the age to come, so the gifts the Holy Spirit gives us are partial foretastes of the fuller working of the Holy Spirit that will be ours in the age to come” (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000], 1019, emphasis his). Sinclair Ferguson notes another purpose: “The correlation between the ascension of Christ and the descent of the Spirit signals that the gift and the gifts of the Spirit serve as the external manifestation of the triumph and enthronement of Christ. Paul underlines this by the way in which he cites Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:7–8: ‘When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men.’ The outpouring of these gifts of the Spirit marks the downfall of Christ’s enemies and the beginning of the building of the church” (Sinclair B. Ferguson, The Holy Spirit, Contours of Christian Theology [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996], 207–208). Finally, the exercise of spiritual gifts ultimately has a Godward focus, “in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 4:11).

[3]Ferguson, Holy Spirit, 214. Perkins wrote The Art of Prophesying in 1592. According to Ferguson, a motivation for defining prophecy in this manner is to allow “New Testament references to ‘prophecy’ . . . to have a direct significance for the ordering of contemporary church life.” Cf. John F. MacArthur Jr., Speaking in Tongues (Chicago: Moody, 1988), 15, 60, 85; idem, Charismatic Chaos (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 69.

[4]Wayne A. Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1982); idem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, rev. ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2000); idem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 1049–1061; D. E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Exeter, UK: Paternoster, 1983); Max Turner, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts in the New Testament and Today, rev. ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 185–220.

[5]Criticisms of Grudem and this perspective include: Ferguson, Holy Spirit; Richard B. Gaffin Jr., Perspectives on Pentecost (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1979). Supportive of Grudem’s efforts is D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12–14 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1987).

[6]For the perspective that these spiritual gifts are miraculous in nature, see J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology: Systematic Theology from a Charismatic Perspective, 3 vols. in 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 2:351–358. For the perspective that these gifts are abilities to study carefully, understand, and apply the Word of God, see MacArthur, Speaking in Tongues, 16. MacArthur deals specifically with the “gift of knowledge” in his discussion.

[7]These proficiencies may be helpful for leading the church, but they may be counterproductive (not to mention unbiblical) as well. Church leaders need discernment with regard to these matters.

[8]Williams, Renewal Theology, 2:358.

[9]Ibid., 2:358–360. His citation is from James G. D. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1975), 211.

[10]Carson, Showing the Spirit, 39.

[11]Thankfully, Williams distances himself and his understanding of this gift from the “word-of-faith teaching” as exemplified by Kenneth Hagin (Williams, Renewal Theology, 3:365–367).

[12]Ibid., 2:367.

[13]Turner, Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts, 240; cf. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 210–211.

[14]This may be the faith of the one who needs healing (e.g., Luke 8:43–48; 17:11–19) or the faith of those engaged in the act of healing (e.g., James 5:14–15). In some cases, it may be both (e.g., Acts 3:1–16), and at other times healing may take place through “vicarious” faith, the faith of another person to believe that God will heal a sick companion (e.g., Mark 2:1–10; Matt. 8:5–13; 15:21–28).

[15]Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1063; cf. Turner, Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts, 240–260.

[16]As Turner notes, the Gospels feature summaries emphasizing that Jesus healed everyone, “every disease and every infirmity” (Matt. 9:35), without exception (cf. Matt. 4:23–25; 14:34–36); “there are no stories of his failing to heal . . . nor any of his refusing a petitioner. The inference is drawn that Matthew holds out a universal expectation of healing for the faithful.” However, Turner offers an important caution: “But this type of argument is not entirely convincing. We would hardly expect gospel stories about Jesus failing to heal people (even were there such cases), or of his turning them away, for such stories would have little or no survival value in the oral tradition of the church. As for the summaries, they naturally aim to highlight Jesus’ success, but the adjective pas (‘all’), translated above as ‘every’, should not necessarily be made to absolutize. . . . The locution in the summaries undoubtedly indicates reverent awe at the scale and diversity of Jesus’ healings, but may fall short of affirming that each and every case was dealt with.” Indeed, some narratives demonstrate that Jesus intentionally did not heal everyone (e.g., John 5:1–9; Mark 1:32–39) (Turner, Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts, 256).

[17]Ibid., 250–252.

[18]Williams, Renewal Theology, 2:375.

[19]Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1062–1063.

[20]Williams, Renewal Theology, 2:375–80; cf. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1062–1063

[21]Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1082.

[22]Williams, Renewal Theology, 2:209–210. He argues that the evidence that the Samaritans had received the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17)—tangible, powerful evidence that Simon “saw” (v. 18)—was speaking in tongues. I think the narrative lacks sufficient details for interpreters to rightly draw this conclusion.

[23]In the cases of the Samaritans, Cornelius and his family, and the Ephesian disciples, there would be no need for speaking in other human languages (as there had been on the day of Pentecost), and if other human languages had been spoken, they probably would have been unrecognized as such by Peter and John (with the Samaritans), Peter and some of the brothers from Joppa (with Cornelius; Acts 10:23), and Paul (with the Ephesian disciples).

[24]Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1076.

[25]Williams, Renewal Theology, 2:405.

[26]See Jane Dempsey Douglass, “Foreword,” in Seeing beyond the Word: Visual Arts and the Calvinist Tradition, ed. Paul Corby Finney (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), xi-xiii.

[27]For a discussion of the debate between continuationists and cessationists with respect to the ongoing nature of the so-called miraculous or sign gifts, see Cole, He Who Gives Life, 252–255; Wayne A. Grudem, ed., Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996).

[28]David Peterson, Engaging with God: A Biblical Theology of Worship (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 283. Two improvements on this otherwise excellent study would have been a much broader consideration of the biblical theology of worship in the Psalms and a discussion of worship in the Pastoral Epistles. In personal conversation with Peterson, he acknowledged that for the sake of time and space, he did not dedicate sufficient study to those two areas of Scripture.

[29]Bruce D. Marshall, Trinity and Truth, Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine 3 (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 4.

[30]William Temple, Readings in St. John’s Gospel (1939; repr., Wilton, CT: Morehouse Barlow, 1985), 67.

[31]Allen P. Ross, Recalling the Hope of Glory: Biblical Worship from the Garden to the New Creation (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2006), 67–68.

[32]Ibid., 66–67.

[33]Ibid., 68. As Ross notes, “Describing worship as a celebration does not nullify the fact that it is a service or that there are solemn and serious aspects to it” (ibid.).

[34]Ibid., 69.

[35]That worship consists in both the recognition of and the ascription of praise to God is very important. “Worship is homage. . . . the attitude and activity designed to recognize and describe the worth of the person or thing to which homage is addressed” (G. Henton Davies, “Worship in the Old Testament,” in Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. George Arthur Buttrick, 5 vols. [Nashville: Abington, 1981], 4:879). The church is to speak its adoration of God.

[36]Ross, Recalling the Hope of Glory, 70.

[37]Latin ritualis, from ritus, or rite.

[38]Ross, Recalling the Hope of Glory, 71.

[39]Some of the following is adapted from Mark Driscoll, “Regulative Principle,” from the “Religion Saves” sermon series, March 2, 2008, accessible at http://marshill.com/media/religionsaves/regulative-principle.

[40]Frank L. Smith, “What Is Worship?” in Worship in the Presence of God, ed. Frank L. Smith and David C. Lachman (Greenville, SC: Greenville Seminary Press, 1992), 16–17.

[41]According to R. J. Gore Jr., “at least five different approaches (based on as many principles) can be identified in the Western church today. First, there is the ‘pragmatic’ approach, which argues, in practice if not in theory, that whatever works is allowed. . . . Second, there is the Roman Catholic ‘ecclesial’ approach, which maintains that whatever the church deems to be correct is allowed.” In addition to the regulative and normative principles, Gore adds a fifth approach—the “covenantal approach”: “Whatever is consistent with covenant faithfulness is appropriate” (R. J. Gore Jr., Covenantal Worship: Reconsidering the Puritan Regulative Principle [Phillipsburg, PA: P&R, 2002], 9–10). His book offers a critique of the regulative principle and advocates the covenantal approach. Approaching this topic with greater precision, Michael Farley discusses several permutations of the regulative principle: first, the “praxis-oriented” regulative principle that “defines the norm for Christian worship as the apostolic practice of corporate worship in the first-century church”; and second, the “theologically oriented” regulative principle that “derives norms for Christian worship by evaluating the way that particular liturgical practices communicate biblical truths in ritual and symbol.” This latter principle appears in two different varieties: the “patristic-ecumenical” model and the “biblical-typological” model” (Michael A. Farley, “What Is ‘Biblical’ Worship? Biblical Hermeneutics and Evangelical Theologies of Worship,” JETS 51/3 [September 2008]: 591–613). Because the historical debate in Protestant churches centered on the regulative and normative principles, the following discussion will focus on those two and will not delve into sophisticated subtypes of those principles.

[42]Some of the following discussion is adapted from my Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 659–680. See also Edmund P. Clowney, The Church: Sacraments, Worship, Ministry, Mission, Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 120–123.

[43]John L. Girardeau, Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church (1888; repr., Edmonton, AB: Still Water Revival, 2010), 9. Whereas Girardeau applied the regulative principle to three areas of the church—doctrine, government, and worship—most adherents to the principle limit its application to the church’s worship. It is this circumscribed application that will be the focus of the following discussion.

[44]John Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming the Church (1543), in The John Calvin Collection (Ages Digital Library, 1998), CD-ROM, 197.

[45]Historians debate the role that Calvin’s theology of worship played in the subsequent development of the regulative principle. For the position that its roots go back to Calvin, see John Allen Delivuk, “Biblical Authority and the Proof of the Regulative Principle of Worship in The Westminster Confession,” WTJ 58 (1996): 238. For the position that the Puritans innovated the principle, see J. I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1990), 247–248; Gore, Covenantal Worship, 88–89; Graham Keith, “Too Narrow a Straightjacket? Reflections on the Historical Development of the Regulative Principle of Worship,” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 26/1 (2008): 20–21. My thanks to Grant Gaines for his help with these resources.

[46]Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.6.

[47]Ibid., 20.2.

[48]Ibid., 21.1.

[49]John Owen, Independents’ Catechism, answer to question 14, in The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, 16 vols. (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1965), 15:467.

[50]Ibid., explication of question 14, in Works of John Owen, 15:467–470.

[51]Ibid., in Works of John Owen, 15:470–471.

[52]Ibid., question 17, in Works of John Owen, 15:477.

[53]Formula of Concord, article 10 [4], “Of Church Rites,” in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 6th ed., rev. David S. Schaff, 3 vols. (1931; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983), 3:160–164.

[54]Thirty-nine Articles, 20, in Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols. (New York: Harper, 1877—1905), 3:500.

[55]James Bannerman, The Church of Christ: A Treatise on the Nature, Powers, Ordinances, Discipline, and Government of the Christian Church, 2 vols. (1868; repr., London: Banner of Truth, 1974), 1:339–340.

[56]See Ronald P. Byers, The Future of Protestant Worship: Beyond the Worship Wars (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002); Elmer L. Towns, Putting an End to Worship Wars (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997); Terry W. York, America’s Worship Wars (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003).

[57]As far as I know, Mark Driscoll’s sermon on these two principles is the only recent evangelical sermon on the topic. Interestingly, the regulative versus normative principle issue was the number one requested sermon from him in a 2008 sermon series entitled “Religion Saves.”

[58]J. Ligon Duncan III, “Does God Care How We Worship?” in Give Praise to God, ed. Philip Graham Ryken, Derek W. H. Thomas, and J. Ligon Duncan III (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2003), 27; cf. 23.

[59]Ernest C. Reisinger and D. Matthew Allen, Worship (Cape Coral, FL: Founders, 2001), 79–80.

[60]Driscoll, “Regulative Principle.” Creatively, Driscoll articulated what he called the “missional worship principle”: “Ceaseless worship is doing what God commands in Scripture and not doing what God prohibits in Scripture in culturally-contextualized ways for the furtherance of the gospel when both gathered and scattered in joyful response to God’s glorious grace.”

[61]Wayne E. Ward, “The Worship of the Church,” in The People of God: Essays on the Believers’ Church, ed. Paul Basden and David S. Dockery (Nashville: Broadman, 1991), 67.

[62]For further discussion, see J. Matthew Pinson, ed., Perspectives on Christian Worship: Five Views (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2009); D. A. Carson, ed., Worship by the Book (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002); Marva J. Dawn, Reaching Out without Dumbing Down: A Theology of Worship for the Turn-of-the-Century Culture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995); Edith M. Humphrey, Grand Entrance: Worship on Earth as in Heaven (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2011).

[63]Karl Barth, The Göttingen Dogmatics: Instruction in the Christian Religion, ed. Hannelotte Reiffen, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 24.

[64]Martin Luther, “On the Councils of the Church,” in Church and Ministry III, ed. Eric W. Gritsch, vol. 41 of Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), 149–150.

[65]He cited Matthew 18:20 in support (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960], 4.1.9. In his Genevan Confession, Calvin formulated his first mark in a negative way: “Where the gospel is not declared, heard, and received, there we do not acknowledge the form of the church” (Calvin, Genevan Confession, 18, in Calvin: Theological Treatises, ed. J. K. S. Reid, Library of Christian Classics 22 [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1954], 31).

[66]Ward, “Worship of the Church,” 68. Though Ward’s comment was made with respect to the earliest British Baptist churches in particular, it applies equally to Protestant churches in general.

[67]Augsburg Confession, 7; Belgic Confession of Faith, 29; French (Gallic) Confession, 28; Scottish Confession of Faith, 18; The Thirty-nine Articles, 19; Westminster Confession of Faith, 25.4.

[68]Gabriel Fackre, The Church: Signs of the Spirit and Signs of the Times, The Christian Story—A Pastoral Systematics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 4, 36.

[69]John Webster, Word and Church: Essays in Christian Dogmatics (Edinburgh and New York: T & T Clark, 2001), 221–222.

[70]Ibid., 222.

[71]For a discussion of these and other reasons and forms, see Scott M. Gibson, Preaching to a Shifting Culture: Twelve Perspectives on Communicating that Connects (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004); Haddon W. Robinson, Biblical Preaching: The Development and Delivery of Expository Messages, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 17–19; Paul Scott Wilson, Setting Words on Fire: Putting God at the Center of the Sermon (Nashville: Abingdon, 2008), 7–9; Jeffrey D. Arthurs, Preaching with Variety: How to Re-Create the Dynamics of Biblical Genres (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2007), 29–37.

[72]I am not saying nor implying that invitations to unbelievers to embrace salvation in Jesus Christ should not be a part—even a regular part—of preaching. But such invitations must be preceded by clear presentations of the message of divine wrath and grace, human depravity and inability, Christ’s perfect obedience and atoning sacrifice as the God-man, his resurrection, the necessary response of repentance from sin and faith in God’s provision, and the call to forsake all human effort and submit to the lordship of Jesus Christ. Moreover, if worship is designed to bring glory to God, and only Christ-followers have been qualified to engage in glory-giving, then the point of “worship services” is first and foremost the exaltation of the triune God; it is, secondly, the strengthening and equipping of the church and its members, and thirdly, the conversion of unbelievers. Thus, to make “worship services” evangelistic meetings may be faithful to a church’s tradition, but it substitutes a lower priority for higher ones.

[73]Interestingly, William H. Willimon, a self-acknowledged “mainline-liberal-Protestant-Methodist-type Christian” who is “soft on Scripture” and who preaches “a pitifully compromised, ‘Pealed’-down gospel” (his reference is to the positive thinking emphasis of Norman Vincent Peale) chides evangelical “Bible-believing preachers” for selling out and sounding “more like liberal mainliners than liberal mainliners.” His source of disillusionment was prompted by the fact that “these ‘biblical preachers’ were becoming ‘user friendly’ and ‘inclusive,’ taking their homiletical cues from the ‘felt needs’ of us ‘boomers’ and ‘busters’ rather than the excruciating demands of the Bible.” He particularly faults these preachers for deifying pop psychology and conservative politics (William H. Willimon, “Been There, Preached That,” Leadership Journal 16/4 [Fall 1995]: 75–78).

[74]Millard J. Erickson and James L. Heflin, Old Wine in New Wineskins: Doctrinal Preaching in a Changing World (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1997), 9.

[75]Robinson, Biblical Preaching, 21.

[76]Erickson and Heflin, Old Wine in New Wineskins, 9

[77]E.g., χάρις (charis; grace) occurs x times in the New Testament, with y occurrences in the Pauline corpus and z occurrences in Galatians.

[78]E.g., ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia) derives from two Greek words, ἐκ, meaning “out of,” and καλέω, meaning “to call”; hence, “church” refers to “the called out people of God.”

[79]These are words that occur just one time in either the Hebrew Bible or the Greek New Testament and present a significant challenge for interpretation involving careful study of the possible cognate languages—e.g., Arabic, Syriac—from which these words originated.

[80]To use a computer analogy, exegesis is like DOS; expository preaching is like Windows.

[81]Andrew Watterson Blackwood, The Preparation of Sermons (New York, NY and Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1948), 30.

[82]Sidney Greidanus, The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), 11, quoting from Merrill Unger, Principles of Expository Preaching (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1955), 33. In advocating for expository preaching, I do not minimize or dismiss the legitimacy of topical sermons. This approach takes a topic of interest (e.g., marriage, cloning) and scrutinizes and explains it in light of all the relevant Scripture passages. A well-measured dose of topical sermons interspersed with a usual diet of expository sermons may make for a very healthy church because it provides opportunities for the church to address pressing moral and social concerns (as noted with the examples of marriage and cloning) and/or face particular issues confronting the church. For example, a series on stewardship is needed periodically to teach new members about the importance and manner of giving, and it serves as a reminder to all the members of their responsibility to support the church and its ministries. Caution should be exercised when using topical sermons to ensure that biblical passages referenced (but not expounded) are interpreted correctly and not just interjected into the messages as proof-texts.

[83]Much of the following received stimulation from John P. Newport, “The Purpose of the Church,” in Basden and Dockery, People of God, 32–33.

[84]A compelling case can be made that the Jewish rejection of Jesus as their long-awaited Messiah was according to the divine plan. Briefly, the prophet Isaiah recounted this word from Yahweh, who was speaking of the Lord: “And he will become a sanctuary and a stone of offense and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many shall stumble on it. They shall fall and be broken; they shall be snared and taken” (Isa. 8:14–15). This prophetic word was repeated when the elderly Simeon took the baby Jesus into his arms and “said to Mary his mother, ‘Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is opposed (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), so that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed’” (Luke 2:34–35). Jesus was fully cognizant of bringing and being the appointed judgment of God on his own people. In Matthew’s narrative, immediately after Jesus made the sobering pronouncement—“therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits” (Matt. 21:43)—he explained, “And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him” (Matt. 21:43–44). In later New Testament commentary on Jesus as σκάνδαλον (skandalon), “a stumbling block to Jews” (1 Cor. 1:23), Paul underscores that Israel’s unbelief was a fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy (Isa. 8:14, interestingly mixed with Isa. 28:16): “They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written, ‘Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame’” (Rom. 9:32–33). The context in which Paul makes this affirmation makes it clear that such a stumbling was part of the sovereign choice of God (Rom. 9:14–29).

[85]Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 506.

[86]For the importance of the church’s evangelism of the Jewish people, see “Jewish Evangelism: A Call to the Church,” Lausanne Occasional Paper No. 60, in A New Vision, a New Heart, a Renewed Call: Volume 3, ed. David Claydon, Lausanne Occasional Papers from the 2004 Forum for World Evangelization (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2005), 377–434; Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser, eds., To the Jew First: The Case for Jewish Evangelism in Scripture and History (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2008); Louis Goldberg, Our Jewish Friends (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux, 1977); Steve Cohen, Beginning from Jerusalem (St. Louis: Apple of His Eye Mission Society, 2001); Moishe Rosen and Ceil Rosen, Witnessing to Jews (San Francisco: Purple Pomegranate, 1998). A disturbing proposal is that made by Mark Kinzer. This messianic Jewish writer calls for a “bilateral ecclesiology” in which Jewish believers in Jesus observe the laws of Torah while focusing their social interactions on the Jewish world (whose inhabitants are not necessarily lost) and only secondarily on Gentile Christians (Mark S. Kinzer, Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism: Redefining Christian Engagement with the Jewish People [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005]).

[87]“The Lausanne Covenant,” 5, in New Vision, a New Heart, a Renewed Call, 712.

[88]Ibid., 713.

[89]James D. Smart, The Teaching Ministry of the Church (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 11.

[90]Robert W. Pazmiño, Foundational Issues in Christian Education: An Introduction in Evangelical Perspective, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 276.

[91]James Riley Estep Jr., “What Makes Education Christian?” in James Riley Estep Jr., Michael J. Anthony, and Gregg R. Allison, A Theology for Christian Education (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2008), 26. Estep cites J. L. Seymour, “The Clue to Christian Religious Education: Uniting Theology and Education,” Religious Education 99/3 (Summer 2004): 279, 284.

[92]Ibid., 38.

[93]Ibid., 40.

[94]Michael J. Anthony, “The Nature of Theology and Education,” in Estep, Anthony, and Allison, A Theology for Christian Education, 16–17,

[95]Newport, “Purpose of the Church,” 31.

[96]For example, a high school student could be linked with a senior citizen for the purpose of developing a discipling relationship. The senior citizen could teach the girl cake decorating and flower arranging as well as pray for her and share Christian wisdom with her, and the high school girl could bring energy, companionship, and a helping hand to the senior citizen.

[97]For some excellent resources, see Joseph Hellerman, When Church Was a Family (Nashville: B&H, 2010); Randy Stinson and Timothy Paul Jones, eds., Trained in the Fear of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2011); Timothy Paul Jones, “Family Life Curriculum,” in Road Maps for Christian Pilgrims, ed. James R. Estep Jr. (Nashville: B&H, 2012).

[98]In commenting on Paul’s discussion of his partnership with the Philippian church (Phil. 1:5, 7), N. T. Wright clarifies the apostle’s use of the term “fellowship”: “As with some of Paul’s other key terms, this word has often been allowed, in the history of interpretation, to slide into referring simply to the way in which Christians feel toward and with one another; but for Paul it was severely practical. It meant a sharing in common life that resulted directly in mutual support; and also it meant that Paul and his supporters belonged to one another with a family identity. What happens to one, happens to all” (N. T. Wright, “Philippians,” in Theological Interpretation of the New Testament: A Book-by-Book Survey, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008], 135).

[99]The biblical and theological case for infant baptism is presented in chapter 10. Biblical precedent for baby dedication often focuses on the Old Testament provision that the firstborn son be consecrated to the Lord (Ex. 13:1–2, 12–13, 15; 22:29; 34:20), exemplified by Hannah with her son Samuel (1 Sam. 1–2:11).

[100]For practical books on conducting Christian weddings, see Jessica North and H. Norman Wright, The Christian Wedding Planner (Grand Rapids, MI: Bethany, 2003); Andy Langford, Christian Weddings, rev. ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 2008).

[101]For an excellent treatment of these practical suggestions for how to help with suffering, see John Feinberg, Where Is God: A Personal Story of Finding God in Grief and Suffering, 2nd rev. ed. (Nashville: B&H, 2004).

[102]For recent works on the theology of death, see Allen Verhey, The Christian Art of Dying: Learning from Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011); Terrence L. Nichols, Death and Afterlife: A Theological Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2010); Fred Craddock, Dale Goldsmith, and Joy V. Goldsmith, Speaking of Dying: Recovering the Church’s Voice in the Face of Death (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2012).

[103]For a helpful resource, see Brian Croft and Phil A. Newton, Conduct Gospel-centered Funerals: Applying the Gospel at the Unique Challenges of Death (Greenville, SC: Day One, 2011).

[104]Accordingly, those who insist that members of the church are required to sell their individual possessions, give all that they have to the church, and exist under some type of communal system are clearly wrong. No such specific biblical instructions can be found in support of this mistaken notion, and the narratives of Acts explicitly deny the idea.

[105]F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts. NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 113.

[106]In a beautifully worded essay on “Imitating the Incarnation,” B. B. Warfield linked the church’s self-denial with that of Jesus Christ: “He was led by His love for others into the world, to forget Himself in the needs of others, to sacrifice self once for all upon the altar of sympathy. Self-sacrifice brought Christ into the world. And self-sacrifice will lead us, His followers, not away from but into the midst of men. Wherever men suffer, there will we be to comfort. Wherever men strive, there will we be to help. Wherever men fail, there will we be to uplift. Wherever men succeed, there will we be to rejoice. Self-sacrifice means not indifference to our times and our fellows: it means absorption in them” (B. B. Warfield, The Person and Work of Christ, ed. Samuel G. Craig [Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1970], 574).

[107]Interestingly, Paul’s vision for the church’s ministry of giving looks quite different than contemporary models of giving that are advocated in both church and society. “Paying it forward”; giving back to one’s community; giving to ease the pangs of guilt for having more than others; giving to make one feel good about oneself; giving so as to receive even more in terms of health, wealth, and prosperity—none of these current expressions of giving philosophies finds a place in the biblical account of the church’s ministry of giving.

[108]My thanks to my student George Cochrane for his research and help with this section.

[109]Though my treatment of this passage is not offered in response to Gordon Fee’s hermeneutical question—“on what ground do some believers develop a ‘hierarchy of hermeneutics’ that argues for the eternal validity of 1 Timothy 3:1–11 (and includes the duties of overseers, even though the texts do not speak to this question), while instruction about the care for and remarriage of widows in 1 Timothy 5:1–16 carries no weight at all?”—his point is well taken (Gordon D. Fee, “The Priority of Spirit Gifting for Church Ministry,” in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, ed. Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, contributing ed. Gordon D. Fee [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004], 245).

[110]The prophetess Anna was an example of such a widow (Luke 2:36–38).

[111]Walter Liefeld, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), 181.

[112]He is probably alluding to the fifth commandment (Ex. 20:12; cf. Eph. 6:1–3).

[113]This last affirmation understands “them” in 1 Timothy 5:4 to refer to both the widow and her children or grandchildren.

[114]Compare James’s denunciation of the wealthy (James 5:5).

[115]Perhaps a third option, not addressed explicitly by this passage, is a widow who chooses to remarry out of love for a particular man. She may indeed remarry—assuming her new husband is a Christian—as Paul endorses in 1 Corinthians 7:39.

[116]The reason for this advice is that it ensures that the goods and services are actually provided for the church members. Giving money to them directly is problematic for at least two reasons: it may not be actually spent on the goods and services for which it was intended, and money may be lost, stolen, or just not spent. Direct payments are also helpful for accountability purposes: church leaders can report to the congregation that its benevolent gifts were used concretely, for example, to provide three months of chemotherapy for one member; to keep on the lights, gas, and water for four members for the past month; and to save one member from foreclosing on her home. In one church in which I was involved, following the monthly celebration of the Lord’s Supper, one of the deacons read a report of how the benevolent fund was distributed the preceding month (keeping the names of recipients confidential), followed by the collection of the next month’s benevolent giving. People were highly motivated to give, knowing how their gifts were being used. For further discussion of important principles and practices of extending mercy properly, see Timothy J. Keller, Ministries of Mercy: The Call of the Jericho Road (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1989), 93–99, 225–233.

[117]Keller succinctly defines “the ministry of mercy” as “the meeting of (1) ‘felt’ needs through (2) deed” (ibid., 46 [emphasis removed], but see the entire section, 46–57).

[118]Pope John Paul II especially underscored the clash of these two cultures throughout his long papacy but particularly in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (March 25, 1995; accessible at: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc–25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html)

[119]The church has historically been involved in taking care of orphans, as exemplified in Apostolic Constitutions, 4.2 (ANF 7:433); the contemporary emphasis can been seen in conferences—Together for Adoption, the Christian Alliance for Orphans, and Adopting for Life—calling the church to engage in adoption as a desperately needed ministry. Cf. Russell D. Moore, Adopted for Life: The Priority of Adoption for Christian Families and Churches (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2009); Carla Barnhill, “Coming alongside Parents: Churches Are Getting Real about Adoption’s Challenges—and Helping Families after the Child Arrives” (Christianity Today 54/7 [July 2010]: 23).

[120]As articulated by the Lausanne Covenant: “The message of salvation implies also a message of judgment upon every form of alienation, oppression and discrimination, and we should not be afraid to denounce evil and injustice wherever they exist. When people receive Christ they are born again into his kingdom and must seek not only to exhibit but also to spread its righteousness in the midst of an unrighteous world” (“Lausanne Covenant,” 5, in New Vision, a New Heart, a Renewed Call, 712).

[121]By using the qualifier “biblically sanctioned,” I indicate that some human rights that are championed today—e.g., abortion, homosexual marriage—are contrary to Scripture; Christians must not work for those human rights. Other rights—e.g., freedom of religion, the right to life—should be advocated by Christians.

[122]Tragically, this notion of the brotherhood (and sisterhood) of all humanity was co-opted by Protestant liberalism and twisted in a warped direction to affirm the unbiblical positions of sin as mere deprivation, salvation as education or re-socialization or political liberation, and universalism (i.e., because God is the Father of all people [in the creation sense], he will also be the Savior of all people [in the soteriological sense]). This liberal development of the concept has frightened away many evangelicals from embracing it, but the evangelical church does not need to be afraid to affirm that God is the Father of all people in the sense that he has created each and every person (Ps. 139:13–16). This affirmation is very different from the affirmation of universalism that God will be the Savior of each and every person. Furthermore, this brotherhood and sisterhood of all humanity—this unity of the human race (Acts 17:26)—has important ramifications for how human beings treat other human beings.

[123]The germination of this idea comes from a discussion of Karl Barth, who emphasized the solidarity of Christians with God in Christ as they stand at his side: “They have not placed themselves at His side. They do not stand there on their own merits. They do so only in the power of the call of His free grace as it has come to them and been received by them. But they do stand there: in the world yet over against it; like, yet unlike it; with it, yet in solidarity with God against it” (Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, 4.3.2, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance, 14 vols. [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010], 557). Forsyth adds, “We must make it clear that Christianity faces the world with terms, and does not simply suffuse it with a glow; that it crucifies the world, and does not merely consecrate it; that it recreates and does not just soothe or cheer it; that it is life from the dead, and not simply bracing for the weak or comfort for the sad” (P. T. Forsyth, The Church, the Gospel, and Society [London: Independent Press, 1962], 18).

[124]This disjuncture is commonly verified, and for it the Lausanne Covenant calls the church to repent: “we express penitence both for our neglect and for having sometimes regarded evangelism and social concern as mutually exclusive. Although reconciliation with other people is not reconciliation with God, nor is social action evangelism, nor is political liberation salvation, nevertheless we affirm that evangelism and socio-political involvement are both part of our Christian duty. For both are necessary expressions of our doctrines of God and mankind, our love for our neighbor and our obedience to Jesus Christ” (“Lausanne Covenant,” 5, in New Vision, a New Heart, a Renewed Call, 712).

[125]Gospel Coalition, “Theological Vision for Ministry,” V.5. Accessible at www.thegospelcoalition.org.

[126]Wright, Mission of God, 314–315; cf. Keller, Ministries of Mercy, 106–119, 211–216.

VII

CONCLUSION

CHAPTER

THIRTEEN

SOJOURNERS AND STRANGERS

The church is a paradox.

As I am using the word here, “paradox” refers to “one (as a person, situation, or action) having seemingly contradictory qualities or phases.”[1]

The church is a paradox, the new covenant people possessing apparently contradictory characteristics.

The last chapter, on the ministries of the church, concluded with a discussion of its stance toward the world, a paradoxical relationship for the church and its members who are called “sojourners and strangers” (see 1 Pet. 2:11). On the one hand, Peter urges the church to “keep your conduct among the Gentiles [the world] honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation” (v. 12). The church is to engage honorably and magnanimously in ministry in and to the world. On the other hand, the church must tread lightly and circumspectly on its earthly pilgrimage as it seeks to escape “from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire” (2 Pet. 1:4). The church is to avoid entanglement with the world and its sinfulness. The church is in the world, but not of the world. It is for the world yet against the world.

The church is a paradox.

But not only in its relationship to the world.

In the opening chapter I offered a definition of the church and raised a question as to the importance of ecclesiology. In terms of the first matter, I noted that the church exists in two aspects, being both “local” and “universal.” As we assemble Sunday morning with other Christ-followers in the particular church of which we are members together, the universal church—all deceased believers now with Christ in heaven, as well as all living Christ-followers throughout the world—is being manifested. The church is local and universal; earthly and heavenly. As for the second issue, as we study the doctrine of the church, we find that we are the church and that we “believe in the . . . church.”[2] The church is paradoxically both what we are and that which we confess.

Chapter 2 focused on the church of the new covenant and the church’s relationship to both Israel and the kingdom of God. What is evident in regard to the first issue is that while the church exists in some continuity with the people of God living under the old covenant—e.g., they are both saved by the gracious divine activity appropriated by faith—the two are distinguished by significant elements of discontinuity—e.g., only the church is the body of Christ and has received his post-ascension gifts through the Holy Spirit. The church stands in both continuity and discontinuity with the people of God in the past. Importantly, for the most part the people of Israel composed the old covenant people of God, whereas the church consists of both Jews and Gentiles, with no distinction between the two in the body of Christ. Still, the church prays for “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16), labors “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (Rom. 11:25), and hopes for a wide-scale recognition of Jesus as Messiah on the part of the Jews, such that “all Israel will be saved” (v. 26). Another paradox is that the church is part of the kingdom of God while also being his appointed instrument providing access into the kingdom. Furthermore, the church submits to King Jesus while praying, “Your kingdom come” (Matt. 6:10)—it lives as part of, but also longs for, his eschatological kingdom.

In setting forth the biblical vision of the church, chapters 3 and 4 presented seven identity markers. These characteristics were classified as those regarding the origin and orientation of the church and as those regarding its gathering and sending. Paradoxically, the church is oriented toward the glory of God, yet he in his magnificent glory is not and cannot be seen. The church is centered on the Word of God, Jesus Christ, who is its head, but he rules his body not from an earthly throne but from his exalted position at the right hand of God the Father. The church is also centered on the Word of God, Scripture, which “is as much a de-stabilizing feature of the church as it is a factor in its cohesion and continuity.”[3] Moreover, the Holy Spirit gives birth to the church, which in turn engages missionally to give birth to other churches through the Holy Spirit. Still more paradoxically, “now” the church gathers to be sent, and as it is sent it looks forward to the future “then” when it will once again be gathered all together with Jesus Christ.[4] Indeed, the church is spatio-temporal/eschatological; “already–not yet”; here, yet not here.

The purity and unity of the church (chapter 5), as well as church discipline (chapter 6), are ingredients in the realization of this biblical vision. In one sense, the church is already holy just as it is already united; in another sense, as everyone can attest, the church falls far short of purity and unity. Furthermore, the church strives to be “holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:27) and aims to “attain to the unity of the faith” (4:13) by pursing greater and greater purity and maintaining its unity. The paradox is striking: pure, yet impure, and striving after holiness; united, yet divided, and laboring for oneness. Indeed, the church experiences divine grace and empowerment for God-glorifying worship, obedience, faithfulness, fruitfulness, and so forth, yet paradoxically it is disconcertingly characterized by the continual presence of God-demeaning idolatry, disobedience, faithlessness, sterility, and so forth. Accordingly, the church is called upon to exercise discipline against sinfully entrenched members and situations in its midst:

Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (1 Cor. 5:6–8)

The church is paradoxically “leavened” and “unleavened.”

In three chapters (chs. 7–9) I addressed the government of the church, and what stands out is the leadership reversal in the church. Specifically, the apostle Peter instructed pastors to lead the church but not as leaders usually lead their followers: “Shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock” (1 Pet. 5:2–3). In so doing, elders mimic their Chief Shepherd, Jesus, who came “not to be served, but to serve” (Mark 10:45), and they follow his teaching and self-identification:

The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves. (Luke 22:24–27)

The church’s pastors are leaders and servants.

Chapters 10 and 11 dealt with the sacraments or ordinances of the church. As sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper point beyond themselves to divine undertakings on behalf of sinful people. These very tangible, concrete ordinances—so called because they were ordained by Jesus Christ to be celebrated by his church—are freighted with invisible significance: immersion in (alternatively, sprinkling or pouring of) water vividly portrays association with the triune God, identification with the major events—death, burial, and resurrection—in the life of Jesus Christ, cleansing from sin, escape from divine judgment, and entrance into the new covenant and its community. This community, regularly eating from the one loaf of bread and drinking from the cup of the Lord’s Supper, proclaims the gospel message of Christ’s death, remembers his vicarious sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, celebrates its ongoing new covenant relationship with God, participates in the body and blood of Christ through the presence of Christ and his salvific benefits, and portrays and stimulates unity in the church. The paradox is keenly and physically felt: water washing (alternatively, dripping or pouring down) over one’s body, bread masticated, and the fruit of the vine drunk, as gospel truth is vividly enacted and spiritually communicated. Signs, they are indeed; but not empty signs.

My treatment of the ministries of the church in chapter 12 began with a brief discussion of the gifts given by the Holy Spirit to equip the church for its work. Ministry and its requisite gifting is characterized by a dual dimensionality: a divine aspect and a human aspect. On the one hand, the great variety in the distribution of spiritual gifts and their empowerment for effective service is grounded in the triune God (1 Cor. 12:4–6), and the Holy Spirit sovereignly distributes spiritual gifts and empowers their functioning (v. 11) “for the common good” (v. 7). Even this common good has a primarily divine orientation: it is for the “building up of the body of Christ” so that the church will attain “to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:12–13) with the ultimate aim that Christ himself will be exalted (Rom. 8:29). This dimension is the divine side of spiritual gifts and church ministry. On the other hand, the human dimension is clearly seen in that spiritual gifts are endowments for the members of the body of Christ. As the gospel is announced, it is the evangelist who proclaims it. As a meeting is directed, it is guided by one who has the gift of leadership. As comfort is extended, one with the gift of mercy is ministering. As a revelation is communicated, it is spoken by a prophet. That is, the exercise of the gifts is a fully (though not merely) human activity “for the common good.” Moreover, this common good has an important human component: it is for the “building up of the body of Christ” so that the church will attain “to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:12–13) with the penultimate aim that Christ-followers will be eminent people, fully conformed to the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29). This dimension is the human side of spiritual gifts and church ministry. Combining these divine and human elements, a twofold reality is at the heart of church ministry and growth. First and foremost, and as a foundation for the second dimension, a divine dimension is at work: Christ himself, as the head of the church who unites each part together, “makes the body grow” (Eph. 4:16); thus, it “grows with a growth that is from God” (Col. 2:19). Second and derivatively, from this divine foundation, a human dimension is at work: the whole church, and each and every one of its parts, equipped with everything it needs for growth, must build itself up in love (Eph. 4:16).

Cognizant of and relying upon this dual dimensionality, the church engages in its various ministries, yet such engagement is full of paradoxes. Its missional endeavor in and to, for and against, the world was underscored at the outset of this chapter. To take but one final example, the church worships in hope, by faith; it does not worship as one day it will. This hope has a double anticipation. First, the church in heaven worships: “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel” (Heb. 12:22–24). As remarkable as this worship in heaven will be, it too will be expressed in hope of a future fulfillment. This second anticipation is worship in the new heaven and the new earth, as described in John’s vision of “the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.’ . . . And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb” (Rev. 21:2–3, 22). The church on earth and the church in heaven will give way in the future to the New Jerusalem, in which worship will occur in a renewed universe, the new heaven and new earth. In the meantime, the church worships in the midst of sin, error, death, tragedy, persecution, temptation, heresy, Satanic attack, and hell on earth.[5] In the midst of its tears and heartache—“through many dangers, toils, and snares”[6]—the church prepares itself through Jesus’ sanctifying work to be “a bride adorned for her husband” (Rev. 21:2; cf. Eph. 5:25–27), worshiping with hope in anticipation of that great day “when faith shall become sight.”[7]

Until then, the church is a paradox, making its pilgrimage in this world and living faithfully coram Deo—in the presence of God in Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit—as “sojourners and strangers.”

___________________

[1]Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed., s.v. “paradox.”

[2]Nicene Creed.

[3]John Webster, Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Approach, Current Issues in Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 46.

[4]Though the reference is not to the church itself, the official hymn of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary includes these lines that dovetail with the current discussion: “We meet to part, but part to meet, when earthly labors are complete, to join in yet more blest employ, in an eternal world of joy” (Basil Manly Jr. [about 1860]).

[5]“Gathered worship [is] not escape from the world where a life of worship is lived” (Michael B. Thompson, “Romans 12:1–2 and Paul’s Vision for Worship,” in A Vision for the Church: Studies in Early Christian Ecclesiology in Honour of J. P. M. Sweet, ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Michael B. Thompson [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997], 131).

[6]“Amazing Grace,” words by John Newton.

[7]As J. J. von Allmen notes about the church’s worship, “this glorifying of God through participating in his glory is still only intermittent, provisional, and singularly clumsy, but it gives an indication, in the exaltation of the Son, of the final orientation of the world and its history, of men and their vocation” (J. J. von Allmen, “The Theological Frame of a Liturgical Renewal,” CQ 2 [1969–1970], 17).