Mother Kirk Part 2

In the last post I contended that the church isn't a voluntary society like the Rotary Club. I also introduced the taxonomy of "invisible church" and "the visible church".  Here I want to offer biblical support for these categories.

Before that though, a short definition of 'church' may be helpful. The word church (or Kirk or Kirche) come from the Greek word κυριακός (kuriakos) meaning "belonging to the Lord". The word only shows up twice in Scripture: once in 1 Cor. 11:20 where it refers to the Lord's Supper and once in Rev. 1:10 where it refers to the Lord's Day. The word became the customary word to designate the place where Christians worshiped as they conceived of themselves as the spiritual house belonging to the Lord. This word church eventually became the translators preference when translating the Greek word ἐκκλησία (ekklessia), which literally means 'gathering' and need not carry religious overtones. Robert Reymond asserts, "Because of this, English translations have lost a rich nuance of Scripture regarding the people of God." (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 805).

What does he mean? The best, simplest definition of 'the church' is the community of God's people through all time. This includes the OT people of God who were redeemed by grace through faith. It includes the living and the dead who have been saved by the cross work of Christ.  This fact is obscured somewhat by the [necessary]  translation process.

The word ekklessia is used in several places in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT) to refer to "the assembly of the Lord" in the OT. For example, Deuteronomy 23:1-3 lists people who shall not enter "the assembly of the Lord". In the Septuagint, the Hebrew is translated ekklesia, the same word we now translate church (similarly, see Deut 4:10, Josh 8:35, 1 Chron 29:10, etc.).  In Acts 7:38 Stephen uses the word ekklessia to refer to the assembly of Israel in the wilderness.

The point of this word study is to emphasize the unity of the covenant people of God, the church, through the ages. (See also James' defense of the mission to the Gentiles in Acts 15 where he connects the building of the church & the incorporation of Gentiles with the promise recorded by Amos that God would "rebuild the tents of David that have fallen").

But what of the distinction between the visible and the invisible church? First a clarification. The visible and invisible churches are not two separate churches, but the same church considered differently - one from God's perspective, the other from our earthly one.

References to the visible church are everywhere in the NT.Many uses demand to be taken in reference to the visible church. I think Matthew 18:17 is certainly one - you tell the visible church of your brothers sin against you. Virtually all the uses in Acts refer to the visible church (Acts 8:1, 11:22, 14:23,27, etc). Its obvious that references throughout the NT to the 'church that meets in' so-and-so's house is the visible church (Rom 16:5, Philemon 2, Col 4:15). Moreover, the passages that speak of sin not being tolerated or church discipline in the church must be references tot he visible church (1 Cor 5:12, 6:4, etc.). I'm sure there's more. But, I think its clear that in these visible communities there were unbelievers as well as believers. Both make up the visible church, only the true believers comprise the invisible church.

Does Scripture make this distinction?

Yes, I think it does, often within the context of apostasy (which we'll consider in depth later). So, for example, Jesus can warn or wolves in sheep's clothing (Matt 7:15-16, see also Matt 7:21-23, 1 John 2:19-20, 2 Peter 2:20-22). They come into the church, are a part of the visible church, but seek to destroy it, proving they aren't a part of the invisible church (as God sees it). Likewise, Paul warns that there will be those who swerve from the faith, but reminds Timothy that while he may not be able to tell in advance who those will be, "The Lord knows those who are his" (2 Tim 2:19).

More positively, you can look to John 17. Here Jesus is praying for the invisible church - the elect who are presently in the world and those elect yet to be born. Also, when the author of Hebrews speaks of "the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven" he is speaking of the invisible church (Hebrews 13:23).

So which matters most? Both! Both are essential. The visible church, not just the invisible church "is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation" (Westminster Confession of Faith, XXV.2).

We'll explore that more in the next post.

Mother Kirk, Part 1

Really, what is the church?

If you take your cues from the contemporary evangelical world, it's a voluntary society - like the Kiwanis or Rotary club, like the Gideons or YMCA. Apparently we've learned our ecclessiology from John Locke. Locke wrote,

"A church, then, I take to be a voluntary society of men, joining themselves together of their own accord in order to the public worshipping of God in such manner as they judge acceptable to Him, and effectual to the salvation of their souls. I say it is a free and voluntary society. Nobody is born a member of any church; ...everyone joins himself voluntarily to that society in which he believes he has found that profession and worship which is truly acceptable to God. The hope of salvation, as it was the only cause of his entrance into that communion, so it can be the only reason of his stay there. For if afterwards he discover anything either erroneous in the doctrine or incongruous in the worship of that society to which he has joined himself, why should it not be as free for him to go out as it was to enter? A church, then, is a society of members voluntarily uniting to that end" (emphasis added).

That's different than another John I know. Calvin wrote,

"When we say that the pure ministry of the word and pure celebration of the sacraments is a fit pledge and earnest, so that we may safely recognize a church in every society in which both exist, our meaning is, that we are never to discard it so long as these remain, though it may otherwise teen with numerous faults. Nay, even in the administration of word and sacraments defects may creep in which ought not to alienate us from its communion...we are not on account of every minute difference to abandon a church, provided it retain sound and unimpaired that doctrine in which the safety of piety consists, and keep the use of the sacraments instituted by the Lord" (Institutes, 4.1.11).

Calvin has spoken. It's not a voluntary association to be thrown away lightly on account of any little disagreement. But what does Scripture say? What is the church?

It is not a simple question, or not a question that one can answer simply. The Bible piles up the metaphors to describe the church: body, building, bride, temple, family, etc. Sometimes the Scriptures seem to speak of the church in its ideal state, other times in the very real, impure state we experience it in now.  The distinction between the invisible church and the visible church is incredibly important and helpful when held together.

Calvin acknowledges both aspects, writing, "I have observed that the Scriptures speak of the church in two ways. Sometimes when they speak of the the Church they mean the Church as it really is before God - the Church into which none are admitted but those who by the gift of adoption are sons of God, and by the sanctification of the Spirit true members of Christ"

In this case, the church is comprised of all the elect scattered across the globe and all the saints who have ever lived. This is the invisible church. But Calvin recognizes the visible church and it's indispensability too,

"Often, too, by the name of Church is designated the whole body of mankind scattered throughout the world, who profess to worship one God and Christ, who by baptism are initiated into the faith; by partaking of the Lord's Supper profess unity in true doctrine and charity, agree in holding the word of the Lord and observe the ministry which Christ has appointed for the preaching of it"

Before jumping all over the part about baptism, notice the very visible nature of it. This isn't a subjective thing, but very objective. Do you confess the faith of the Church? Have you been baptized? Do you partake? Do you go to church? Then you are a part of the church.

Calvin could be mistakenly taken to mean here that the church is the simply the collection of individual believers. It is that, but it's more - it's the Mother and her children, the institution and the members of it. He speaks of the Church "into whose bosom God is pleased to collect his children, not only that by her aid and ministry they may be nourished so long as they are babes and children, but also be guided by her maternal care until they grow up into manhood, and finally attain to the perfection of faith"

Interestingly, Calvin felt he needed to qualify his statement, saying that when he speaks of the church, he doesn't JUST mean the visible church, but all the elect. Today, I think he'd qualify in the opposite way - I don't JUST mean the invisible church.

Again, the emphasis is on the objective, not our subjective evaluation of our (or someone else's) faith. When speaking of the invisible church, it's based on the objective decree of God in election. When speaking of the visible church, it's based on the objective confession, baptism, and participation in the church.

Well, long post and not a single verse of Scripture. We shall have to remedy that next post.

Baptism, the Church, and Apostasy

Here begins a series on baptism, it's function in the church, and apostasy. Don't see the correlation? Stick with me, I think you will. All of this is flowing out of my study on the believers union with Christ (which has been faith changing!), a study I've been doing amidst increasing conviction that us evangelicals lack a robust doctrine of the church.

Like most series I start, it's for me - I get more clarity as I write. On this, I am really looking for dialogue partners. Some of my convictions are shared widely by other Reformed writers. Other don't seem to be. TI feel like I'm out on a limb by my lonesome. Maybe for reason, so I invite push back.

Here's a basic outline:
1. The church can be talked about in terms of the invisible church and the visible church, or the church militant and the church triumphant. Both are helpful. As evangelicals, I think we way overemphasize the invisible church and way underemphasize the visible church. Not sure we even think about the difference between the church militant and the church triumphant.

2. Membership in the church invisible (and triumphant) is based on God's eternal decree. The number of this church cannot be added to or diminished by a single person. But what is the basis for membership in the church visible, the church militant? I believe it's baptism. It is by our baptism that we are grafted into the church and become members of the covenant community. As circumcision was the initiatory rite that introduced children into the covenant community of Israel, so baptism marks the entrance of people into the new covenant community called the church.

3. This understanding goes a long way in helping me understand the warnings against apostasy in the book of Hebrews, and elsewhere. I don't believe it's just a hypothetical situation. Nor do I think we should say they weren't real Christians. Baptism is what identifies someone as a Christian in the objective sense - the baptized takes the name of Christ in their baptism, being baptized in his name and in the name of the covenant God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This does not mean that they were a part of the elect and lost their election. That is impossible. But they were a part of the visible church, a part of the church militant. They were a part of the new covenant community and party to the terms - faith brings blessing, unfaithfulness brings curse.  They are unfaithful to the terms of the covenant, but they are at least under the terms of the covenant (as opposed to those who bear no mark of the covenant and live outside of it).

Ok, I know I've bitten off more than I can chew on that. I'll be posting on each soon.

Funniest video ever

Thanks Brian for recommending this. My life will never be the same again.

 

Means of Grace in the Church

Some ideas are challenging because they are difficult and new. Sometimes ideas are challenging because they have been poorly communicated. On Sunday I made an idea that was challenging because it's new to many more difficult because I poorly communicated it. Usually I don't go back and reexplain myself here on my blog, but I didn't have time to clear it up in the ACG I was teaching and I don't want to leave it un-addressed.

In the ACG I was teaching on the Lord's Supper as a sacrament and introduced the notion that the Supper is a means of grace for the believer. Several were uncomfortable with this phrase because, as they understood it, it seems to suggest that if you do these things, God will give you grace. A friend challenged, "It sound like you're saying 'If you obey, you get more grace'?" And I affirmed that's what I meant - you come to the Lord's table, partake as you are commanded to do, and you receive grace. That didn't sit well in the class, and later, as I reflected on it, I think I understand why.

As I explained it, I may have made it sound like our obedience earns grace. That isn't at all what I meant. In fact, earned grace is an impossibility, it's a contradiction in terms. You can not earn a free gift. If it's earned, it ceases to be free. But, being a free gift doesn't mean that you don't have to do something to access it. If I call to my children and say, "Come down boys, its Christmas! Come get your gifts!", the boys have to do something to get their gifts (get out of bed and come to the tree downstairs. Yet I don't think anyone would say that this takes away from the free nature of the gift - the boys certainly didn't earn it. Or, if I call them to dinner it doesn't mean that I've set up a works based system - you must obey or you don't eat. I'm simply inviting them to where the food is.

That seems to me a pretty good analogy (patting myself on the back a little) for what happens at the Supper. The Supper is a spiritual feast. Our souls are fed as we partake of the body and the blood of Christ. We truly receive grace in this feast - grace that sustains us, helps us persevere, helps us grow in Christ-likeness. We must heed the summons to come to the feast, to come and receive the gift. We don't earn the gift or the banquet, but we come obediently and expectantly ready to receive.

A few more quick points may clarify even more.

First, we don't just need grace once. We need it constantly. You could draw the distinction, maybe, between saving grace (justifying) and sanctifying grace, but I don't know that's necessary or wise. It's all saving grace. Remember: we've been saved, are being saved, and will be saved. Salvation isn't just justification, it includes our sanctification and our glorification in eternity also - all in union with Christ!

Second, while grace can (and certainly does) come to the sinner in surprising and unique ways, it more typically comes through God ordained means. At the individual level, these include the reading of the Word, prayer, the ministry of fellow believers. But there is a special role for the church. Berkhoff writes, "While the Spirit can and does in some respects operate immediately on the soul of the sinner, He has seen fit to bind Himself largely to the use of certain means in the communication of divine grace...The Church may be represented as the great means of grace which Christ, working through the Holy Spirit, uses for the gathering of the elect, the edification of the saints, and the building up of His spiritual body. He qualifies her for this great task by endowing her with all kinds of spiritual gifts, and by the institution of the offices for the administration of the Word and sacraments, which are all means to lead the elect to their eternal destiny." - Louis Berkhoff, Systematic Theology , 604.

Third, I think its always good to remember that our obedience isn't something that earns grace because it's grace based obedience. In other words,"it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13). Every act of obedience draws on God's grace, so rather than earning something from God by our obedience, we go deeper in dept to God's grace as we obey. Amazing Grace indeed! If you want to think more on this, I highly recommend John Piper's Future Grace: The Purifying Power of the Promises of God (you can hear his speak on it it here).