With this article, L. Oostendorp, retired Christian Reformed pastor and Reformed Bible College professor, of Grand Rapids, Michigan, begins a new series of studies on the Doctrine of the Church.
Nowhere have more theories been modified to support practice than in church polity. A surprising number of strange practices have been justified by appeals to Scripture, and when Scripture seemed to forbid others there was always the appeal to extraScriptural tradition. And where even this fails, one has only to declare Scripture irrelevant. Thus a kind of modern pragmatism seems to have become the basis of determining what the church should be or do. If this still leaves unanswered questions, one can take the next step (which for many is the first step). We can forget all about any theoretical basis, and just do what seems good, no questions asked!
Like a mighty army, moves the church of God! Who knows why or where it is moving. We don’t know where we are going, but we are sure we are on the way. One experimental worship follows another. Minister and members are exposed to “how to” seminars. There are house churches, alcoholic churches, gay churches, college churches and children’s churches. If there is any other group that needs a church, that too no doubt could be formed. Who knows what man‘s media is doing for and to the church? Whatever one wishes to call it, there seems to be a “church of the air” or rather “churches of the air.”
Only in our modern TV age could one person influence so many people. The result has been unprecedented personality cults. Never, moreover, have there been so many denominations and independent churches. Thus in many areas reality sweeps us along before we can stop to analyze the rights and wrongs. Practice pushes principles aside. There are so many parts to the ecclesiastical puzzle, that no one seems able to put it together.
Just because Christ’s church is sailing in new and unknown seas, does not mean that we should plunge onward without chart or compass. We still have our Pilot and had better listen to him! With Calvin we must still hold that all of the worship and works of the Church have been prescribed in the Word. It may be increasingly difficult to apply the Scriptural principles to situations in our modern world. But we must not give up the basic, Biblical foundations. The Apostle Paul wanted Timothy to know “how men should behave in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (I Timothy 3:15). What was good enough for Timothy, ought to be good enough for us.
Needed Definition
This means that the church must be the church. Let the church be the church! What does this mean? The word “church” covers many concepts. In the popular way we say: “We have been to church” or “That’s an expensive church.” The term covers congregations or denominations as well as the universal body of Christ. It may be used loosely to include sects. Calvin had questions about calling the Roman Catholics a church, but decided to do so. We have today little or no problem in using the word loosely to cover all kinds of groups. What then do we mean when we say “Let the church be the church!”
The English word church does not convey an essential element in the Greek word “ekklesia.” Originally this word described a convocation or group called together. Efforts have been made to retain this meaning by using the English word “the community” for church. Since chances of effecting such a change are slim, we will have to work with the word “church.” Nor is there any vital reason why we cannot do so. Only let us find out from Scripture what we mean by church.
The New Testament most frequently uses the word for church to apply to a local congregation, sometimes as assembled (Acts 5:11, I Cor. 11:18) or as a body (Rom. 16:4, I Cor. 1). Sometimes it is used for a church in a house (Col. 4:15, I Cor. 16:19). At other times Paul uses the term “the saints” in place of the church at a local place (Eph. 1:1). Church is, however, also used for the whole body of believers in the world (I Cor. 10:32). More often it extends to the whole concept of the redeemed by Christ. Thus Christ uses it in Matt. 16:18, and Paul in many passages such as Col. 7:18 and Eph. 5:23 ff. To these might be added the rich meaning of many symbolic names. If only the church could recognize itself as the “body of Christ” or the “temple of the Holy Spirit,” what a great revelation that would be. Nor would it hurt to be reminded that we are to be the “pillar and ground of the truth.” If only every Sunday the congregation could become aware that we are “God’s possession,” a “holy priesthood,” what a different worship we would enjoy. Undoubtedly we would have greater mission zeal if we could really believe that we are “the light of the world.”
The church today is experiencing an identity crisis. The Reformers were also disturbed by this in their day. They were much concerned about the marks of the true church. This concern led the author of the Belgic Confession in article 29 to describe a sharp contrast between the true and the false church. He sums it all up with the rather astonishing conclusion (at least for our day), These two churches are easily known from each other. But that was said when things were more black and white and not so much endless gray! Recently several rather simplistic efforts have been made to go back to the church of the Acts—the primitive church.
The Bible as Norm
Perhaps we have disposed too quickly of living up to the New Testament pattern. One thing is sure. The New Testament pattern is the normative pattern of the church. We really have no other!
One of the greatest tasks of the Reformers was to establish the legitimacy of their churches. Rome disowned them because they were not in the historical succession. Anabaptists accused them of not being literally close enough to the New Testament pattern.
On the one hand this meant that there were lessons for the church in both the Old and New Testaments which were not to be taken literally. Especially the charismatic and communistic structure of Acts was considered a passing phenomenon. Luther was much opposed to the spirituals who tried to introduce radical reforms into Germany. Calvin no less repudiated an ongoing prophecy and considered some of the New Testament offices as definitely limited to the Apostolic age.
On the other hand, every effort was made to describe and govern the church according to the Word. Calvin never tires of stressing that God has fully revealed how He wishes to be worshipped. To arrive at a contemporary application of the will of God called for a sober analysis of the Scriptural givens. This really meant that he saw the principles behind the practices of the New Testament and tried to apply them in new ways to his day.
Small wonder that Reformed Church polity finds itself under attack from both sides. For the charismatics it is not radically Scriptural enough. Some time ago a sermon on Scriptural worship was criticized because it did not include dancing as an element of the services. The attack from those who consider all the rules of Scripture dated and socially conditioned, however, is much more common and insistent. To steer a safe and scriptural course requires some clear principles. Only thus will we be able to let the church be the church.
Perhaps we should close this introductory article on the doctrine of the church with a warning. The temptation to stand aloof from the actual struggle is indeed great. How easy it is to become critical! Therefore this is one doctrine that should be accompanied with prayer—not only a prayer for the study, but especially much prayer for the object of our study—the church!