A Biblical Church Order?

The Reformers wanted to ground their church polity on the Scriptures. This was their strength against the traditions of Rome. Calvin was fully convinced that the church order which he developed could be derived from the Bible. Any recent efforts to deny the sufficiency of the Word as a guide for the rule of the church is thus a radical departure from the Reformed heritage.

To simply affirm the Scriptural bases of the Presbyterian system will not remove several modern difficulties. The knotty questions raised by the proliferation of denominations as well as the questions of culturally dated precepts have brought with them many problems. An honest conversation with other denominations as well as a profound study of Scriptural principles may not be easy, but they are necessary.

The True – False Distinction

What about the old distinction between the true and the false church? Who today would dare to apply to the contemporary confusion the rule of the Belgic Confession that “these two churches are easily known and distinguished from each other.” Of course, the truth of this statement must be historically justified. Nor do we have to change the basic standards of judgment. Only the application has become hopelessly complex. However, the pressure toward ecumenicity should not force us to abandon the important distinction true—false. No new discoveries have warranted our denial of our heritage in the Protestant Reformation. Nor should we hastily call a church false. But many of our brethren in other communions who are rejecting the doctrinal and moral stand of several mainline denominations are worthy of our support. The distinction true false must still be maintained.

The Better – Worse Distinction

More practical however for most of us would be an emphasis on “better” and “worse.” The crisis of a church being so false that one must leave it arises only in extreme situations. The duty to seek the “better” and rebuke the “worse{ is a constant challenge in every church. Paul’s letters, as well as the message to the seven churches of Rev. 2 and 3, stress the importance of not being too content with the fact that we are a “true” church. How often, alas, churches have had “a name that they were alive, but were dead” (Rev. 3:2). Too often the great illusion was maintained of a “better image of ourselves.” We thought we were rich but were poor, thought that we were clothed but were naked, thought that we could see but really were blind (Rev. 3:17, 18).

In teaching the doctrines of ecclesiology the issue true—false is not particularly helpful. Much more helpful is the concept better—worse. Seldom does Scripture deal with the issue of a totally false church. In fact, it is rather difficult to find even defective congregations like Corinth put in that category. The New Testament however is constantly pointing out defects (“as many as I love I rebuke,” Rev. 3:19) and pressing on toward an ideal church.

In dealing with problems in the denomination or in trying to make improvements it is all too easy to be forced into a psychological or logical corner by the constant reference to true—false. Strange as it may seem, overly zealous defense of the status quo has historically hindered the very reforms which might have saved in a critical situation. Practically every church reform I have studied saw the conflict deepened into a true –false crisis. And every time the critics were forced into more radical judgments by the blindness and vehemence of the defenders. This certainly was true of the Roman Catholics and Luther and of the dealings of the Dutch Church with De Cock and Abraham Kuyper. Instead of seeking to remedy evils, the defenders stubbornly denied their existence. “We dare you to call us the false church!” became the defensive cry. And then by persecuting the prophetic spirits who dared to criticize, they proved how close they were to the description of the false church in the last sentences of Art. XXIX of the Belgic Confession (a church that persecutes Christians).

In dealing with t he marks of the church using the distinction better –worse, we can try to press on to an ideal church. Then we can talk frankly about better preaching of the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). In this area, too, as in the matter of commitment to sound doctrine, we have too often been cornered with the “good enough” mentality. We have even been tempted by a psychologically arrived at “better image of ourselves” while in sober reality our performance continued to deteriorate.

Maintaining the Marks

A good church preaches the truth of the Word of God. It does this not only as dependent on the preferences of one pastor or another, but by a conscious desire of the congregation. Moreover, this determination to have the Word purely, consistently and adequately preached must be carried out. Pastors and elders must show concern not only for what is said but for what is being omitted. And perhaps today the omissions have become the bigger problem. Until someone can show me a better guide for well–rounded and comprehensive preaching of the whole doctrine of salvation, let that most helpful document, the Heidelberg Catechism, keep us on the right path. Nor should the expository preaching on whole Bible books be avoided because it requires diligent study.

Preaching and teaching go together. A good church is concerned with the instruction of the children. This also holds for good seminary training of its preachers.

Some theologians nave suggested the added mark of missions to the three familiar marks of the church. By once more placing this in the context of better—worse instead of true—false, we certainly would have to include it. Personally, I have preferred to place missions under the adequate and faithful preaching of the Word. For how can we adequately preach the Gospel and limit it to the congregation? A good church carries on evangelism. It preaches the Gospel to the whole world!

Calvin seemed to be even more interested in the content and quality of the faith than was his disciple, De Bres. Each in his own way includes in the marks of the true church obedience to the Word. In the Institutes IV 2:4 Calvin reminds us that the true sheep not only “hear Christ’s voice,” but “follow” Him. The Belgic Confession speaks of “all things being done according to the Word” and describes the resulting body of obedient Christians. Karl Barth, in his own existential way, claimed that the Church “existed” only when and while the congregation was believingly and obediently listening to the Word. Based as it was upon the idea of the existential moment, this view would limit the existence of the church rather severely. In a more traditional way it is good to emphasize the importance of receiving and obeying the Word!

     

Ministry of Mercy

Speaking rather within the context of a good church than in an absolute idea of true—false, at least one more mark should be added. In my classes on the doctrine of the church as well as in my congregational ministry I have always stressed the importance of the ministry of mercy. Does it not seem strange that there should be three offices to carry on the work of the church and only two of them have a significant part in marking a true church? Granted that the ministry of the truth should more naturally determine the truth or falsity of the church, why is the ministry of the deacon completely neglected? Again, granted that the maintaining of discipline is integrated with defending the truth, why should there not be also an emphasis on the love that marks the Christian and the Christian church. Let me hasten to explain, that I do not want to have the work of mercy forced into the corner of the “true false” church. But that the faithful and loving exercise of diaconal work is a vital activity of a good church, I trust no one will deny.

Imagine if you will, a church in which there are many affluent members. Some who spare no expense to satisfy their every desire have the controlling voice among the deacons. The congregation has just recently decided to spend several hundred thousand dollars on a new building. Again everything must be the very best!

There is, however, a poor girl. She is a “new” member. That means she has not contributed to the funds of the church. Through no fault of her own, she has become ill and has incurred a large medical debt. After much fear and hesitation, s he gets up courage to ask help from the deacons. She does so because the Bible says in Psalm 72:

When the needy seek Him

He will mercy show

Yea the weak and helpless

Shall His pity know.

She knocks at the door and asks for help. Without explanation she is sent away. Have they said: “You were seeking the merciful Lord at our door? What a sad confusion in your mind. Go away. For He is not here!” What shall we think of the “Christian” character of such a church as this?

The ministry of mercy is a mark of the loving Christian church. We might speak of discipline and sacraments as further marks of the church. But this is enough for this article.