Chapter 12 - The Church, Part I

The Church, Part I As we seek criteria for the definition of the fundamental principles and practices of church activity, to what source shall we look? Nothing is more important in the study of ecclesiology than to be clear on this point.

H. E. Dana, A Manual of Ecclesiology It is in and through the Church that Jesus Christ has willed to elect the salvation of mankind.

                The Teaching of the Catholic Church

Jesus did not "found" the Church; and Jesus unquestionably gathered around Himself a circle of disciples of such as were specially related to Him and whom He specially equipped and sent out in His service.

Brunner, The Misunderstanding of the Church The unity of the churches similar to their holiness, has a paradoxical character. It is the divided church which is the united church.

                Tillich, Systematic Theology

There is no justification theological, spiritual or biblical for the existence of a plurality of Churches genuinely separated in this way and mutually excluding one another internally and therefore externally. A plurality of Churches in this sense means a plurality of lords, a plurality of spirits, a plurality of gods.

Barth, Church Dogmatics No true Ecclesia can be made out of twenty ecclesiastical institutions; Christian fellowship can spring only from spiritual knowledge of Christ, which implies the will to brotherhood in Christ.

Brunner, The Misunderstanding of the Church The last quarter of the twentieth century has seen the institutional church in deep ferment and turmoil. In spite of the use of statistics supporting nominal church membership and tacit support of the church, the church is increasingly forced to take an analytical look at itself. The shift in population to the city has forced the church to look at its centers of ministry. For instance, one denomination (Southern Baptists) has about 70 percent of its churches in towns of fifty thousand or less, while 70 percent of the population lives in cities above fifty thousand in population. On the other hand, the metropolitan areas are tending toward isolation from the church. The snug world of the apartment complex makes it possible for one to seal oneself off from the traditional outreach of the church. The mobility of our society makes it increasingly difficult to promote a stabilized witness in a given area. A community of churches can be wiped out by one stroke when an industry, an air base, or some other complex is closed or moved. A new problem is in the area of church size. There are large mega-churches in large cities in which well choreographed worship services occur several times a day. The mega-church involves thousands who do not know each other and who cannot interact with each other. People may be drawn to the mega-church because they are able to "lose" themselves in the crowd and little responsibility is required.

Other complicating features include the revolutionary features of Vatican II, instituted by Pope John, bringing changes so that the Roman Catholic Church is accused of going Protestant, while the Protestant churches are accused of going Roman. The term "ecumenical" appeared promising mergers as a way to cut divisions in Christendom but the fever for church union has diminished considerably. The problems centering around the church as an institution have nowhere, perhaps, been analyzed as well as in the lucid work of Emil Brunner, The Misunderstanding of the Church. The basic issue that Brunner sets forth is this : Is the church an institution or a fellowship? As an institution, the church is defined as a sacrament-dispensing organization which bestows grace through the sacraments to the faithful. A fellowship, on the other hand, has no sacramental grace to bestow. It has, however, a gospel to preach and ordinances that are observed, but not in the sacramental sense of the Roman Church. The misunderstanding centers around the institutional structure of the church, which is contrary to the New Testament. Because the term "church" is associated with a hierarchy of priests, sacraments, and generally a state-church relationship, Brunner prefers to jettison the term "church" for the term ecclesia, a transliteration of the New Testament word which is translated "church." But the English word "church" is "far removed from the meaning of ecclesia as used in the New Testament." ¹ The issue is not a matter of poor translation but the association with an organizational structure. Brunner is not alone in objecting to the term. Luther, in spite of some affinities to Roman Catholicism, preferred not to use the term "church" and spoke of the ecclesia as the"community, the congregation, the company, or little company." ² Still others have used the term "Spiritual Community" ³ or brotherhoods. Zinzendorf used this and is described by Karl Barth as the first genuine ecumenicist.⁴ The ecclesia in the New Testament is not an institution but a fellowship. "It is nothing other than men in fellowship, in fellowship with God and in fellowship with each other."⁵ The fellowship is composed of those who have been reconciled and find their true selves in this reconciliation. The ecclesia is a "brotherly Christocracy," ⁶ that is, a community of people related to Christ by commitment and therefore, he is their Elder Brother.

It is in this area of difference, and thereby misunderstanding, that Brunner maintains the ecumenical movement is hung up. The tragic thing is not the continuing existence of pluralism on a denominational basis, but the "failure to acknowledge the Ecclesia as a spiritual brotherhood which is not an institution." ⁷ The brotherhood can have laws and institutions but it can never regard these as belonging to its essence. But, above all, it can never understand itself as an institution. And precisely that is the essential thing. The Ecclesia’s understanding of its own nature is not that of an institution. The nature of the Christian brotherhood is basically different from the nature of an institution, which is called the Church, and is indeed incompatible with it.⁸

How did the ecclesia in the New Testament degenerate into the institution of the church? This is difficult to answer. There is no decisive point at which one can say the ecclesia has ceased, and the church as a new phenomenon begins. The ecclesiastical development of the community of Jesus Christ is so difficult a conundrum precisely because the change takes place in tiny but continuous stages, and indeed at first in such a way that even the new institutional elements are not simple innovations but in actual fact--as Catholic theories assert-- "develop" from obscure origins which are already partly latent in the New Testament Ecclesia⁹ In its early adjustments and struggles against heresy and schism, the institutionalization of the fellowship took place. The fellowship was replaced by the institution, faith was transformed from a term meaning commitment to acceptance of a creed and a moral code, and the living Word was institutionalized in theology and dogma.¹⁰

What justification can be given for this transformation? This will be considered later in the matter of the norms governing the church, but at this juncture one can declare that no justification is possible from the perspective of the Scriptures. It can only be lamented. From the institutional standpoint, the Roman Church maintained for itself the role of the teaching church. Therefore, whatever now is, is right, for Christ has presumably directed the church to this present position. There are two basic assertions that the Roman Church has maintained which explain the transformation over the centuries. The first is the sacramental view of salvation which regards the church as the dispenser of grace requiring a priesthood. The second was the claim of temporal power which identified the church with the state. Both of these were contrary to the ecclesia in the New Testament. The nature of the church is no mere academic question. The particular definition that one receives determines to a large extent one’s activity with reference to the church. Although the Reformation churches did not fully restore the ecclesia, they went far enough in that direction to change the pattern of culture in Europe and America from non-Reformed areas. Brunner acknowledges his indebtedness to the Free Churches ¹¹ and declares that it is because of them "that there is in this part of the world personal freedom, social sense of responsibility, free criticism of the status quo, critical scholarship, even Biblical criticism, free science and an understanding of the dignity of the person and also a sense of the dignity of service." ¹²

Thus, the question of the nature of the church or ecclesia will determine its direction in the world. At no other time since the Reformation has there been so great a need for a new Reformation to reclaim the ecclesia concept of the followers of Christ. The Norm

What is the standard whereby such discussions can be judged? From what standpoint can one criticize the practices and activities as well as the organization of the church?

There are essentially three starting points for the discussion about the nature of the ecclesia.

Tradition: A considerable portion of Christendom speaks of tradition as authoritative. Abandonment of the New Testament is not wholly done, but the changes in structure are justified on the basis of a germinal appearance in the New Testament. With the assumption that the church is the authoritative teacher and interpreter of the New Testament, there is little need to justify much from the Scriptures. The teaching function of the church includes the fact that the church is a learning church. As the Spirit of God is the soul of the church, then it progressively learns.

Tradition per se must be rejected because tradition gives support to many things that are contrary to the Scriptures. The Bible itself is the tacitly acknowledged source of tradition to something beyond itself. Tradition is a poor norm because traditions vary. Which tradition will one follow? Tradition is by no means a unanimous whole. The Church Fathers give quite a wide variety of opinions concerning both doctrinal and policy matters.

Tradition can be useful for the lessons it teaches, but not for the determination of the government and character of the church.

Expediency: Advocates of expediency have maintained that no norm for the church has been given, but such matters have been left to human capacities and intelligence and that "those forms of church polity have been devised through the Christian centuries which were best adapted to the tastes and conditions of each successive age." ¹³ The church has made progress through the centuries in arriving at a useful form, but there is no absolute ideal which should serve as the standpoint of comparison.

Expediency is related to purposes, but the purposes of the church are declared in the Scriptures. While some things may be useful in accomplishing the purposes of the gospel, it remains that without the scriptural norm we are left without a knowledge of the church’s purposes. Hence, expediency is left without a guide.

TheScriptures: If we are to know anything about the ecclesia, it will have to come from the Scriptures. It is the Bible that gives rise to the church, and not the church viewed as the custodian of the Scriptures. It is true that the church was founded before the Bible was written, but there is no possibility of starting an ecclesia apart from the declaration of the gospel-written or unwritten. Our argument is : if you want to know what the church should be, know what it was declared to be in the Scriptures.¹⁴ This poses problems for the Roman tradition, for a church which believes itself infallible is, therefore, never genuinely open to the criticism of the Scriptures. It has closed its mind. But when the ecclesia accepts the Scriptures as the norm for its life and self understanding, it stands under the criticism of its Lord. Self criticism is the continual basis of self-reform.

Definitions of the Church There are several definitions of the church. The three types parallel the broad differences of types of churches.

Thebody of Christ (corpus Christi). The term "body of Christ" is used in one sense by Roman Catholic writers and in another sense by Protestant writers. The Roman tradition describes the Church as the outward institution possessing a priesthood which is authorized to administer sacraments and convey thereby the grace of God to the faithful. Separation from the Church is a sacrilegium. Separation or schism can come only because of a lack of love or pride. It is to be emphasized that the Church external is identified with the body of Christ.

Protestants use the term "body of Christ" to speak of the "invisible church" in which, apart from all external and spatial organizations, the believer is related to Jesus Christ by faith. He is the church’s head, and the church is the body. This is all conceived symbolically but intimately because of faith’s relationship to Christ. The church is thecompany of the elect.--Emphasized by Augustine, elaborated by Calvin, this view is summed up in the Westminster Confession which says, "The Catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one , under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all." The church thus can include some who are beyond the bounds of the visible expression of the local church, as well as exclude some who are within its visible boundaries. In a general way the Reformed churches stand in this tradition. The church is thecommunion of the saints (communio sanctorum): Arising out of the Reformed tradition but emphasizing the people who make up the church, rather than the decree of God’s election, two confessions give historic expression of this concept. The Belgic Confession declares: "We believe and profess one catholic or universal church, which is a holy congregation of true Christian believers, all expecting their salvation in Jesus Christ, being washed by His blood, sanctified and sealed by the Holy Spirit."¹⁵ The Second Helvetic Confession declares similarly that the church is "a company of the faithful, called and gathered out of the world: a communion of all saints, that is, of them who truly know and rightly worship and serve the true God, in Jesus Christ the Saviour, by the word of the Holy Spirit, and who by faith are partakers of all those good graces which are freely offered through Christ."¹⁶ The communion of the saints places emphasis on the individual members united to Christ by faith through the Spirit of God. To the members individually are given the great promises. Belonging to the church does not refer to an outward institution, nor receiving the sacraments.

We may speak of the church or ecclesia in more simple terms. It is a group of people committed by faith to Christ, who in obedience to his command have been baptized (that is, who take the sign of his covenant for their lives), who are committed to obedience in their lives in seeking his purposes for mankind. The third definition has broad parallels to the Free Church tradition. The personal category is opposed to the sacramental. "One of the most urgent requirements of a Church that wishes to be apostolic in the New Testament sense is that it should be freed from sacramental thinking." ¹⁷ Can we combine all three definitions? What judgment can we make about these three? It is difficult to combine the first and third definitions. They are at odds with one another. The church as the elect of God can never be more than invisible for the present. It is not entirely incompatible with the third definition, but a mixture of the two strains the definitions. The third definition is the more biblical of the three. By the vantage point of our times it seems imperative to recover the concept of the ecclesia as opposed to the institutional-sacramental church. People are interested in the problems of personality and the issues facing them. The brotherhood of Christ and the fellowship of God’s people offer the means of meeting people’s needs. Jesus founded a people, not an institution. "A people has institutions, but it never understands itself as an institution." ¹⁸ TheOrigin of the Church To pinpoint the precise time the church became a reality is impossible. As a fellowship it began with the collection of the disciples by Jesus. As a fellowship, however, it had no good news to declare, nor even a mission to accomplish until after the resurrection of Jesus. To talk of the church’s origin from an institutional view is also difficult. The common source of appeal for the origin of the church during the ministry of Jesus is the confession of Peter, recorded in Mat 15:16-18. The word "church" (ecclesia) occurs only in two instances in the four Gospels- Mat 16:18 and in Mat 18:17. The appeal to Mat 16:18 has been quite crucial for Roman Catholic theologians.¹⁹

Granting its genuineness, the more important question is the interpretation of the phrase, "I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the powers of death shall not prevail against it." The traditional Roman view has appealed to these words to support the establishment of Peter as Christ’s vicar on earth. In some cases an appeal is made to the Aramaic, in which case the word "Peter" and "rock" is the same (kepha). However, there are no Aramaic gospels. We have only the words in Greek, which draw an important distinction between the name of Peter (Petros) and the word rock ( petra). Assuming the inspiration of the Scriptures, as does the Roman Church, one can rightly argue that it is not without significance that the play on words is used along with a different word. Jesus did not say to Peter that on you I will build, but on this rock, referring to something other than Peter, or something that Peter did.²⁰ The better view, as we see it, is that Peter’s confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah is the "rock." The ecclesia is built upon the confession that Jesus is the Christ for which reason Peter is described as blessed. Peter speaks for the group in confessing what Jesus had been subtly showing them all along. It is with reference to this confession that Jesus warns his disciples to tell "no man" at the moment (v. 20). The confession of faith is consonant with the requirement for confessing him before men (Mat 10:32-37) . However, the really important meaning of the text is the one who is acknowledged, not the one who is acknowledging. If one is inclined to emphasize the personal role of Peter as a foundation of the church, it must come in conjunction with the rest of the apostles and even prophets -- but it is always Jesus who is the cornerstone (Eph 2:20) .

It is this confession--Jesus is the Christ, the appointed Messiah-- that is the key to the kingdom of heaven. This perception of knowledge is unlike that of the religious lawyers whom Jesus criticized: "Woe to you, lawyers! for you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering" (Luk 11:52 ) . Whoever confesses in faith, as Peter did, has the keys to the kingdom of God.

Having discussed some of the main problems in the passage, we must assess this as a proper place to speak of the church’s origin. The passages give us little more than the "germ" of the church. The church proper is not an actuality until Pentecost, for it is not until then that it has the presence of the Spirit and a gospel to proclaim. Pentecost is the climax of the church’s origination, for there the Lord adds to the church; that is, the fellowship of believers. Nothing at this point is said about officers, for officers are not a necessity to the church’ s origin. However, officers do have a contributory function in the ecclesia. Their role and origin will be discussed later.

We have not been consistent in our use of the term "origin of the church" from an institutional point of view. It is hard to be. One may speak of the origin of the church as Roman theologians do, but there is no final point where one may say, "This is the church." The developmental idea in Catholicism makes this impossible. Structurally the Roman Church has grown. It is not the same today as it was in the year A.D. 500. In all candor, the question, "When did the church (institutional) originate?" must be answered fairly with, "It is still originating."

Marks of the Ecclesia Can we speak of the "true church"? Many will affirm this statement, but others are highly negative. Brunner regards the term "true church" as a self-contradictory statement. If the New Testament is the standard for deciding the question, then there is no "true church" rather, there is a spiritual ecclesia or brotherhood that is not institutional in nature. The church is a new species that has arisen out of an old genus. Therefore, to discuss the question, one must remember the transformation that did take place in the history of the Christian community. The transformation--the movement of the community into the world--continued apace until people were born into the church in the same way they were born into the state. The problems that arose when the church was coterminous with the state caused theologians to create a distinction in the church community. In a state-church situation, there are those who are members of the church in name only. On the other hand, there are those who manifest faith in Christ and walk in obedience. Because of the discrepancy between being Christian in name and faith, Augustine, along with others, spoke of a visible church in contrast to the invisible one. This distinction is yet current in theology. However, the distinction is rejected from two standpoints. It is rejected by the Roman Catholics who identify the visible church with its external institutional existence in its bishops It is rejected from the other side by those who seek to recover the New Testament idea of the ecclesia. The distinction is not meaningful because the invisible church does not appear in history, and thus it can never be a fellowship. Each person may be in the "invisible church" only on an individual basis. On the other hand, the visible church is no more a fellowship, "it is rather an institution, a collective, hence an external, means of help. Both the one and the other fail to tally with what was intended and realized in the New Testament : the communion of the fellowship with Christ which as such meant also the communion of the members with one with another." ²¹ Moreover, the "invisible church" concept is completely foreign to the New Testament, "while the interpretation of the real visible Church as a merely external means of salvation is not only foreign to it but completely impossible." ²² The evidence for the visible concept of the church as opposed to the invisible is the usage of the word in the New Testament. Eighty-one percent of the passages must be understood as a local group of believers.²³ The passages used to support an invisible church concept are drawn mainly from Ephesians, where the ecclesia is referred to spiritual Israel in an ideal sense, but not in a concrete sense. In these passages is stressed the blessing of union with Christ, which is com- mon to all believers in all ages; and hence the spiritual relationship is meant. But this particular "spiritual conception of the ecclesia has no concrete expression in the form of objective existence, for the local ecclesia is a thing of different nature and function." ²⁴ Traditional "Marks" of the Church

It is a truism that the church, or ecclesia, ought to be one, but the real issue is, one what? One outward organization? A oneness of spirit? A unity of doctrine? A unity of purpose? There are generally two attitudes prevalent.

Oneness of organization: The unity of the Roman Catholic Church is in its organization; therefore, it is not an ideal but is considered an actuality: "It was a mark of her constitution from the beginning. The unity promised by Christ was that proper to the society of his followers, to be manifested visibly in the unanimous profession of one faith, the performance of one act of worship, the acceptance of one system of government." ²⁵ Historically, the unity has been stressed from the standpoint of being in union with the bishops of the Church.

Within the present ecumenical movement in Protestantism, there is amalgamation of denominations into larger units, whereby it is hoped that denominationalism will subside and structural unity will emerge.

Denominationalism does have its problems. It can lead to inefficiency, whereby efforts are duplicated by other groups; to pride and arrogance; to denominational exclusivism, whereby church life is stratified to economic class, and so on. In contrast, it must not be supposed that a monolithic organization will guarantee unity. Even in the Roman Catholic tradition, one only has to know the history of the Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans, and Augustinians to know what violent differences of opinions have been held concerning major issues in doctrine. Even de fide declarations of faith do not guarantee unity. Many Roman Catholics reject some de fide statements, regardless of the authority of the church. Organizational unity also has its problems. Church unionism presumes to say that denominational differences are in reality, trivial-- which in many cases is true-- but important doctrinal issues are often involved. Church unionism asks a person to give up ideas of faith that he holds to be important by virtue of his membership in a particular denomination. "Denominational prejudice is indeed unchristian, but not any more so than ecclesiastical dogmatism or repudiation of honest convictions."²⁶

Church unionism cannot create a true ecclesia, regardless of how many ecclesiastical unions there may be. Spiritual knowledge of Christ produces Christian fellowship and brotherhood.

Oneness of fellowship: The unity of the ecclesia is a spiritual unity. Because men are related to Christ by faith in him, they become aware of their spiritual identity with one another. The prayer of Jesus was that "they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us" ( John 17:21 ) . This hardly admits of an ecclesiastical structure.

Paradoxically, it is the leaders of the church who are working for church merger. The lay members recognize that when Christ is trusted as Savior there is a spiritual unity among believers of all denominations. Oneness of fellowship implies the possibility of diversity of appeal to diverse people. The Salvation Army brings together a fellowship of believers who would be alienated by a highly liturgical worship service. Yet, is not the same Lord present to both? Diversity of forms of worship does not exclude our spiritual unity in Christ. Strangely enough, it is the dying churches that are bent on uniting with the growing churches, and the more clerical in nature swallows the less clerical. In each case, some group is the loser. In spite of the tendency to church unionism, the man in the pew often has a better understanding of the unity of the fellowship in Christ than the cleric. He understands that the unity of the churches is paradoxical. "It is the divided church which is the united church.²⁷ The concept of the holiness of the church differs quite radically from Roman Catholicism to Protestantism.

Roman theory: The Roman Catholic view is that the Church is made pure in actuality. "It implies freedom from sin and impurity and the possession of grace, whereby the whole direction of our lives brought into harmony with the divine commandments."²⁸ "Moreover by means of her sacramental system, the Church effectively produces in her members the holiness which she preaches."²⁹

Protestant theory: The Protestant view is that the church is declared to be holy in the sense that believers are declared to be just in their position in Christ. Faith does not imply perfection in the Christian life. By the same token, the church is holy in that it is separated unto the service of God. It is not without sin. Yet it is a forgiven church. The holiness of the church consists in its willingness to hear the Word of Christ, believe and obey it, and respond in love to mankind, because God has loved the ecclesia.. The church can only be declared holy because its Head is holy, and its members have a connection with him. To say that the church is holy is not to say that it is without sin. The ecclesia is composed of those who confess they need God’s help. It is not a group of perfect people; it daily stands in need of God’s forgiveness. Holiness is not infallibility. The infallible church is not existent. The church has made mistakes and the sooner it acknowledges its sins and seeks God’s forgiveness in humility, the sooner it will recapture its vision of service to God and man. The term "Catholic Church" seems to have been used first by Ignatius of Antioch (d. 117) in a letter to the Smyrnaeans : "Wheresoever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church."³⁰ The word is Greek and means universal, general, or comprehensive. By the time of the Apostles’ Creed, in the post-New Testament era, the phrase apparently referred to an institutional structure.

Roman theory: The catholicity of the church is defined in a variety of senses with regard to its outward organization. It maintains: universality in place --it is diffused throughout the world; time--it will always exist; people--it includes members from every nation; conditions of men--all social structures; doctrine--it claims the full teaching of Christ without change; and means of salvation-- it has the cure for men’s spiritual illnesses ³¹

Protestant theory: Many Protestants have spoken of the invisible church as universal or catholic. The real catholic church is the one including believers all over the earth at any one time. The Heidelberg Catechism points up this view. Question 54 says, "What dost thou believe concerning the holy, universal Christian Church?" The answer to be given is : "That from the beginning of the world to its end the Son of God assembles out of the human race an elect community to eternal life by His Spirit and (His) Word in the unity of true faith, that He protects and upholds it, and that I am a living member of the same, and will continue to be so to all eternity."

It is obvious to many Protestants that one cannot identify this invisible community with the visible. Because the term originally referred to an institution that is said to be universal, but because it is obvious that many people have not heard the Christian gospel, the term has been reinterpreted and used in a noninstitutional content. The church’s universality must be understood in a teleological or purposive sense, The ecclesia is intended for the whole of humanity. This is the meaning of the Great Commission in which Jesus sent his disciples into all the world. This type of reinterpretation of universality is required also in the historical view of the church, when one may speak of a true church in the apostolic era, but certainly at a time when the church was not catholic or universal in outreach. The Apostolicity of the Church

Roman theory.-- The Roman Catholic Church seeks to maintain a continuity from the apostles unto the present day. One must look for a "legitimate, public and uninterrupted succession of pastors, heirs, as it were, of the Apostles, and in agreement with them in faith, worship and Church government."³² It is admitted that a departure "from its original constitution would mean that the unity of the Mystical Body had been broken." ³³

Protestants have rejected the apostolic succession of the church for a number of reasons. First, one cannot read the New Testament and come up with the Roman Catholic system of government, or system of worship. The transformation of the ecclesia into the institutional church is a factor already discussed. Second, the list of Hegesippus on the line of bishops is more than doubtful, and it is also highly questionable whether the bishops have been preserved from error, This indicts the concept of bishops all the way up to some of the ancient popes.³⁴ Third, it is questionable whether historical continuity does guarantee purity of doctrine.

Protestant theory: To say that the church is apostolic is to say that it is true to Christ. Apostolic means likewise to be under the "normative authority, instruction and direction of the apostles, in , agreement with them . . . listening to them and accepting their message."³⁵ For the church to be apostolic also means for it to reject a formal hierarchy and to accept the ecclesia as the norm.³⁶

Instead of a historical succession, Protestants have emphasized the spiritual succession or return to the norm of the New Testament. The apostolic church emphasized faith as commitment to Jesus Christ. Faith was not known as assensus, or assenting to the truth of something, , but fiducia, trust, or commitment of one’s life.. The apostolic church was a genuine brotherhood. If there is any other kind of succession than spiritual continuity it would be a succession of service.

"If the community is really to find itself and to act in line with Jesus Christ and His apostles, there is only one attitude, and that is the attitude of subjection and obedience. " ³⁷ The purpose of the "marks" as we have discussed them is to help people in recognizing the "true church." Some theologians speak of the foregoing discussion as "attributes" or characteristics of the church and define the "marks" as something else. When this is done the "marks" of the "true church" are defined variously from one to three. When only one mark is maintained, the other two are to be regarded as inherent in it. The true preaching of the Word.---Calvin wrote, "Wherever we see the word of God sincerely preached and heard, wherever we see the sacraments administered according to the institution of Christ, there we cannot have any doubt that the Church of God has some existence, since his promise cannot fail."³⁸ The true preaching of the Word means that all the message and doctrine of the church is under the judgment of the Scriptures. It is not the Scriptures and tradition, or anything else, but sola Scriptura. The right administration of the sacraments. The comment by Calvin includes the sacraments which are integrally related to the Word and from which they derive their meaning. Sometimes called the "visible word," the sacraments are to be administered by "lawful ministers of the Word."³⁹ The sacraments will be discussed below. The faithful exercise of discipline: The exercise of discipline is necessary for maintaining pure doctrine and non-abuse of the sacraments. Discipline in morals and doctrine is the implication in this mark. The Body of Christ The church as the body of Christ deserves some detailed treatment, for the concept has great differences in Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. The Roman Catholic concept is defined as follows: "The Mystical Body of Christ--a body in which the members, indeed their natural life individually, are supernaturally vivified and brought into harmony with the whole by the influence, the wondrous power and efficacious intervention of the Divine Head."⁴⁰ The vivification comes through the sacramental power of the Church which has become the repository of grace. As a corollary, the church is the continued incarnation of Christ ’⁴¹

Inasmuch as the Church is institutional and sacramental as well as incarnational, the Roman Catholic Church has been forced to defend its own ecclesiastical structure. In doing so, the real nature of the body of Christ has been subverted. The institutional church is a denial of the apostolic ecclesia. The Lord created for himself a communion of persons and not an institution. The indwelling of the Spirit is related directly to the person because of one’s faith in Christ rather than the Roman Catholic view that the Spirit is the soul of the Church in a sacramental context. When one speaks of faith in Christ, the indwelling of the Spirit is taken for granted (Eph 1:13) . The body of Christ has another implication for Roman Catholics that it does not have for Protestants. The communion of saints is based upon the analogy of some parts of the body helping other parts. Therefore, those who are in the heavenly kingdom of God may be of help to the "faithful still wayfaring on earth."⁴² The idea is based upon analogical reasoning rather than upon scriptural foundation.

Protestants have rejected the practice because the Spirit of Christ is closer to us than anything else can be. ’There is no evidence that the departed can hear the prayers of the saints, along with the fact that no one loves us more than Christ. No one is more compassionate than he. To say that a saint, such as Mary, is compassionate and will be sympathetic to man’s cry is to imply that Christ is not able to hear, or is not as compassionate as they. This attitude deprecates the person of Christ. The communion of saints likewise rests upon another analogy for which there is no support in the Scriptures. The cell in the body is communicated to the attributes of the whole body and being of Christ. It becomes ubiquitous and can hear prayer just as Christ does. There is real danger in pushing analogies too far. But if one is inclined to build dogma on analogies, one must remember that the head only is Christ, and he alone is the ears of the ecclesia The Catholic veneration of the saints is defended against the charge of idolatry on the basis that reverence is not adulation. However, for many Protestant this is a matter of words that means nothing. If prayer is addressed to a saint there is little difference in actuality, because the attributes of omnipresence, grace, and power are necessary on the part of the saint to hear the cry of the sinner.

What is legitimate in the role of intercession is that the living are to pray for the living. Christians are commanded to pray for one another, for rulers, and for all men ( 1Ti 2:1) . The body of Christ is promised the indwelling of the Spirit. The indwelling of the Spirit is within the person and not the church. ( The gift of the Spirit has already been dealt with in an earlier chapter.) There can be no ecclesia without the Spirit; there can be a "church" without the Spirit.

Baptists and the Ecclesia

Martin Luther and John Calvin can be regarded as great leaders in the reform of the church. However, from the standpoint of the Anabaptists and the later Baptists, they did not go far enough. The Reformers retained the principle of Constantine and Theodosius that residents of a given territory must belong to the state church. The Anabaptists rejected the principle along with the expression of membership in the state church--and infant baptism.

Neither Calvin nor Luther was consistent in his insistence upon faith on the one hand and infant baptism or state church on the other. In essence, the Baptist movement was an attempt, insofar possible, to return to the ecclesia of the New Testament. The Baptists have been much maligned. The Reformers spoke of them enthusiasts. Brunner, as a non-Baptist, maintains that they were caricatured out of all proportion to their sober faith in Christ and agreement with the New Testament as the single authority of faith. He asserts that the Baptist movement was premature but that its impact forced the churches eventually to adjust themselves to their own good. The role of fellowship in the ecclesia, in contrast to the priestly hierarchical approach of the church, is seen in the Anabaptist response to the Great Commission. Franklin Littel describes the Anabaptist the first group of people--since the time of the apostles--to make the Great Commission an imperative for every member of the ecclesia.. For centuries, the Great Commission had been interpreted in terms of the apostles and their exploits for evangelism. The Anabaptist fellowship picked it up anew and said to each member: "You must bear witness actively, openly, and vocally to the gospel of Christ."

It is the recovering of the ecclesia that is most needed in our day. The Function of the Church With the increasing secularization of the world and the church, the function of the church needs clarification. The churches have lost something of their participation in the world at large, thereby becoming at best a segment of life and at worst an isolated group. The ecclesia must again relate itself to society at large. It can do this in a number of ways.

First, the ecclesia may re-emphasize the way of silent interpenetration.⁴³ This means that individual members of the ecclesia permeate in the various groups related to themselves and, like a rose filling a room with fragrance, fill the group with the spiritual dynamic of the Christian life. This path seems difficult and overwhelming in light of the increasing secularization of the world. Yet to withdraw this type of influence would be to withdraw spiritual influence on a plane that would leave the world desolate by comparison.

Second, the ecclesia may assume the role of critic of society. Thus the church must declare the pagan way of life devoid of meaning and point the world back to its Creator. It is this type of approach, connected with other factors, that brought the early pagan society under the influence of the Christian gospel.

Third, it may take the way of political establishment. The first two ways fall within the religious sphere, while this one goes beyond it. Tillich wrote of this way: "Every church has a political function, from the local up to the international level. One task of the church leaders on all levels is to influence the leaders of the other social groups in such a way that the right of the church to exercise its priestly and prophetic function is acknowledged by them." ⁴⁴ As the church seeks to renew itself and work out avenues of approach, there are certain areas it cannot neglect.

First, it has a missionary function. The Commission of Christ implies a universal declaration of the gospel. The missionary expansion receives priority in the lineup of the functions of the church. A church that loses its feeling for evangelism is like a body that loses a vital organ. The means to a healthy life is gone.

Second, if the church is to continue without dying, it must fulfill its role of teaching--hence education. The crisis of this role is reflected in the sharp criticism of the Sunday school over the preceding years. The church’s role in education must be more inclusive. The ecclesia must not only teach concerning the doctrinal ideas of the New Testament but it must also help its younger members, either in age or in religious experience, enter into the benefits of the fellowship. The young Christian must be taught and helped to pray, to share his faith with others, to study the Scriptures, and to defend his faith when necessary. The impartation of knowledge is only half the story--the experiences of "doing" is the other half.

Third, edification in love. The ecclesia must seek continually the renewal of itself in love. Love builds up the ecclesia, whereas knowledge does not do this. "In short, every Christian, the whole community, is the subject of edification." ⁴⁵ In short, there is no edification that does not take into consideration the edification, or building up in love, of the whole ecclesia.

Fourth, service. There is a demand upon the ecclesia that it should serve. Its service includes a hand to the downtrodden, encouragement to the depressed, comfort for the bereaved, companionship to the lonely, being a father to the fatherless and a mother to the motherless. It seeks to bring meaning to the searching; peace where there is strife, and love where there is none. In a word, the ecclesia is to meet the redemptive needs of mankind, whatever they be.

Temptations of the Church The ecclesia, being composed of people dedicated to Christ is not without peculiar temptations. Some of the following temptations recur repeatedly in the life of the ecclesia.

First, one of its greatest temptations is to water down the message of the gospel for the sake of popularity. With the pollution of its message, the ecclesia loses its unique concepts such as sin and grace. With the demise of its message, it becomes naturalistic in ethics and religion. If the church becomes just another sociological group, it not only becomes inadequate but it "can be replaced by other groups not claiming to be churches; such a church has no justification for its existence.⁴⁶

Second, the church has the temptation to become an end in itself. The church may regard its self perpetuation as an adequate cause for its self-assertion. The ecclesia was not founded for the purpose of having an institution that will persist. Its sole purpose for existence is in its Lord.

Third, there is the temptation of regarding its life as dependent upon something other than God’s grace and power. If it seeks not its life in God, the sharp words of the world will make it take to itself philosophies alien to the Word of God. Its ethical standard will become dented without authority. Its message will become restricted by the momentary crisis of the environment without regard to the long view of history. Without looking to God for its survival it will turn to political alliances and economic forces which will dilute its influence for the gospel’s sake. Unless it retains self-knowledge concerning its true nature, the church cannot transcend the momentary.

Fourth, the danger of irrelevance. To many people the ecclesia, or the church, is irrelevant. It has become so involved with trivia that the great challenges are lost. Many a man, on becoming a Christian, has felt inspired to go forth and win the community for Christ, but instead was sidetracked by being made the chairman of the flower committee.

Conclusion

    In conclusion, the doctrine of the church is one of the most complex, as well as one of the most important, doctrines in Christian faith. It is primarily this doctrine that has divided much of Christendom. The sources of division are yet to be considered in the following chapter.

XII. The Church Part I ¹H E. Dana, A Manual of Ecclesiology (Kansas City: Central Seminary Press, 1944 ) , p. 20.

²Barth, Church Dogmatics, N-l, 651 ³Tillich, Systematic Theology, III, 163.

⁴Church Dogmatics, IV-l, 683.

⁵Brunner, Christian Doctrine of the Church, Faith, and the Consummation p. 21 ⁶Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV, 680.

⁷Christian Doctrine of the Church, Faith and Consummation, p. 129.

⁸Ibid., p. 30.

⁹Brunner,The Misunderstanding of the Church,p. 74.

¹⁰Ibid., p. 53 ¹¹The Free Church tradition is the nonsacramental, nonhierarchical, non-liturgical tradition within Protestantism.

¹²Christian Doctrine of the Church, Faith, and the Consummation, pp. 90-91.

¹³ Dana, op. cit., p. 199.

¹⁴See the refreshing treatment by the Roman Catholic theologian Hans Kung, on TheChurch, Seed and Ward.

¹⁵Belgic Confession, Article XX VII.

¹⁶ Second Helvetic Confession, Chapter XVII.

¹⁷Brunner, Christian Doctrine of the Church, Faith, and the Consummation, p. 125.

¹⁸Ibid., p. 22.

¹⁹Some non-Roman writers reject the sayings as genuine on the grounds that Jesus did not speak of the church elsewhere.

²⁰The play on words refers to different types of rocks. Peter is a petros, a stone, pebble; and petra is the ledge rock or foundation rock that is immovable.

²¹ Brunner, Misunderstanding of the Church, p. 17.

²². Brunner elsewhere declares: "’This double concept of the Church is wholly foreign to the New Testament. There is in it only the one ecclesia, which is at the same time spiritual and invisible (intelligible to faith alone) and corporeal (recognizable and visible to all). No Apostle would ever have agreed that this visible entity, the Ecclesia, was only a support of faith, let alone an external support. For the disciples it was wholly impossible to distinguish between visible and invisible Ecclesia. . . . For them the Ecclesia which belongs to Christ through faith was at the same time the Ecclesia which everyone could see."-The Christian Doctrine of the Church, Faith, and the Consummation, p. 29.

²³Dana, Manual of Ecclesiology, p. 67.

²⁴Ibid., p. 57 ²⁵George D. Smith, Teaching of the Catholic Church, p. 703 ²⁶Dana, Manual of Ecclesiology, pp, 167-68.

²⁷ Tillich, op. cit., III, 170.

²⁸ George D. Smith, Teaching of the Catholic Church, p. 703.

²⁹Ibid., p. 704.

³⁰Ibid., p. 705

³¹Ibid.

³²Ibid., p. 705

³³Ibid., p. 706 ³⁴See The Infallibility of the Pope, by Salmon ³⁵Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV-l, 714 ³⁶Brunner, Christian Doctrine of the Church, Faith, and Consummation, p. 119.

³⁷Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV-l, 720 ³⁸.Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 289.

³⁹Berkhof, op. cit., p. 578.

⁴⁰George D. Smith, Teaching of the Catholic Church, p. 669.

⁴¹Ibid., p. 693.

⁴² Ibid., p. 685.

⁴³Tillich, op. cit., III, 212 ff.

⁴⁴Ibid., III, 214.

⁴⁵Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV-2, 635.

⁴⁶Tillich, op. cit., III, 166.