Thoughts, dumb and dumber

Who Runs This Place?

Bob B. — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 04:01:26 +0000

A few Sunday’s ago,my pastor noted in his sermon that Christ is the King of the universe, that He is sovereign over all creation, including the church. Christ’s authority and rights as King of the Church should be obvious and evident to us, but they often are not. Many of us have used phrases such as “my church” or “our church” when discussing the church we attend. In doing so we are correctly and simply identifying ourselves with a particular body of believers. Or are we? Could it be, even subconsciously, that in using such phrases we are claiming ownership of the church? Is it “my church” from a sense of belonging or from a sense of controlling interest?

Several months ago I had dinner with some friends from my seminary class. Most of our time together was spent bragging about the things God is doing in our respective churches and in our families. In some ways we all spoke with a sense of pride about what “our churches” are doing to minister for Christ. At the end of the evening however, we parted company with a renewed sense of the power of God at work in the church. We were filled with a deep sense of awe by the many and various ways in which Christ uses HIS CHURCH.

We speak of “our church” or “my church,” but in doing so, let us not forget that the church belongs to no one except Christ. The church was created by and given its missional direction by Christ (Matthew 16:18). It was Christ who “instituted the means of grace which the church must administer, namely, the Word and the sacraments” (Mt 28:19, 20; Mk 16:15, 16; Lk 22:17-20; 1 Cor 11:23-29). It is Christ who gives church officers authority to “speak and act in His name” (Mt 10:1; 16:19; Jn 20:21-23; Eph 4:11, 12). It is Christ who “is ever present in the Church when [the church] meets for worship” (Mt10:40, 2 Cor 13:3) and performs His mission in the world.^{^[1]}

”The church has no life apart from Christ and receives from Christ whatever life it has [and] cannot continue to exist for even a moment apart from Him.”^{^[2]} Christ is the church’s “founder and its foundation, its savior and its owner, its preserver and its hope, its lover and its beloved, its righteousness and its holiness, its Head and its King.”^{^[3]}

Who runs this place? Christ and Christ alone! Our church belongs to Christ and it is His to rule (run) because He is King. Are we letting Him do so?^{^[5]}

^{^[1]} Louis Berkhoff, Systematic Theology, 1938, Combined 1996 Edition, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, page 582.

^{^[2]} R. B. Kuiper, The Glorious Body of Christ – A Scriptural Appreciation of the One Holy Church, 2006 Banner of Truth edition, page 94.

^{^[3]} Ibid, page 91.

^{^[4]} If Christ is in fact King of the Universe, then He is King over all. Are you allowing Him to be King in your life?

The “Fourth Mark” of the Church

Bob B. — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:13:35 +0000

“To all outward appearances,” writes R. B. Kuiper, “the church frequently presents a picture of dissension rather than harmony. Nor are such appearances altogether deceiving. As a matter of plain fact, there is at all times considerable disharmony within the visible church.” Kuiper blames much of this disharmony on individuals who indulge “in the twin sins of pride and jealousy,” along with a corporate failure to maintain proper church discipline. He goes on to say that disharmony also comes from an individual and corporate failure to remember that the Head of the church is Christ.[1]

While it may seem that disharmony is the “fourth mark” of the church, the truth is that the church is to be known for its harmony[2]. In the 12th chapter of Romans, Paul gives us an example of what living in harmony should look like.

Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Share with God’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.[3]

Kuiper notes that the harmony which should exist among “the members of Christ’s body [should] stand out strikingly in relation to their diversity [for] harmony presupposes diversity. When identical voices sing identical notes, no one thinks of harmony. But when different voices singing different notes blend with one another, the product is harmony.”

“There is [and should be] much diversity among the members of Christ’s church. Some have five talents, others but one. Some have attractive characters, others are relatively unattractive. Some are leaders, others followers. Some are rich, others poor. Some are highly educated, others unlearned. Some are strong in the faith, others weak. But each needs all the others. They complement one another. They co-operate with each other. Collectively they constitute one body,” the harmonious Body of Christ, the church.

While the Reformers do not list harmony as a mark of the church, it is essential to our mission and witness. Are we singing in harmony?

[1] Kuiper, R. B., The Glorious Body of Christ, Banner of Truth Trust,2006 Reprint, p. 97ff.

[2] It must be recognized and understood that some dissention and disharmony within any body, even within the church, can be profitable. The Protestant Reformation had its roots in disharmony. While the Roman Church saw the Reformers as “dissenters,” it was the very act of their dissension which brought about the needed reforms in the church.

[3] New International Version, Romans 12:10-21 (selected portions).

Marks of the Church – part 2

Bob B. — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:03:05 +0000

Calvin and Luther believed that where the Word of God is rightly preached and the Sacraments rightly administered, church discipline will naturally follow. Later reformers would argue that church discipline is so vital to the well being of the Church that it is in fact the third mark of a true church. Scripture clearly mandates that the church proactively and reactively administer discipline to the members of the church body. Contrary to popular thinking, church discipline is not punishment. The primary goal of church discipline is the restoration of individuals to fellowship with each other and most importantly with God. A secondary goal is maintaining the purity of individuals and the church. In exercising church discipline the church shows to each other and to our community God’s mercy, grace, and justice.^{^[1]}

In Matthew 18:15-17 Jesus lays out for us the guideline for effective church discipline.

“If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony 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, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” (NIV)

This passage, along with passages in Paul’s writings, tells us that the proper exercise of church discipline is a multi-step process. It begins by talking to each other with a willingness to resolve the issue. When individuals cannot resolve an issue one-on-one, it is their obligation to ask others for help in resolving the problem. When other people cannot resolve an issue, then it is time to “tell it to the church.” That does not mean we tell it to anyone who will listen or put the church gossip chain into full drive^{^[2]}. Telling it to the church means bringing the matter before the elders for consideration and prayerful resolution^{^[3]}. In extreme cases, such as Paul’s response to public sin in the church at Corinth^{^[4]}, telling it to the church can mean public discipline^{^[5]}.

Proper church discipline is a positive means for nurturing individuals and maintaining the body of Christ for the battles we face each day. Like physical therapy or surgery, church discipline is meant to restore strained relationships and repair broken body parts. Rulering elders must react to matters of church discipline when matters come to their attention. They must respond to problems and situations which affect the well being of individuals or the church body. They must do so with the realization that the facts of church discipline should be known only by those with a clear need to know. Accordingly, most individuals in a church community should be unaware of the actions taken by the elders in regard to church discipline. Their prayerful aim should be for restoration to occur with the fewest number of people knowing an offense has occurred.

The first two marks of the church are readily visible witnesses to the power of God. The third mark of the church, the right administration of church discipline, may not always be as visible as the first two, but it is equally as important. We willing listen to God’s Word being preached and readily participate in the Sacraments. Let each individual in a congregation, when the need arises, resolve to willingly and readily participate in and respond to the church discipline process.

^{^[1]} The scandals surrounding the Roman Catholic Church in regard to sexual abuse is one example to all churches which shows how damaging to Christ and the Church the rejection of church discipline can be. There are few too many other examples.

^{^[2]} Both of which are sins worthy of church discipline! And, yes, I’m as guilty as all of you.

^{^[3]} For example, under some denominations, in extreme cases, the matter of church discipline can extend beyond the local church to regional or even national governing bodies for resolution.

^{^[4]} See 1 Corinthians chapter 5 and, most importantly, 2 Corinthians 2:5-11 where Paul urges the restoration to fellowship of the one who sinned.

^{^[5]} It must be recognized that some public sins require a proper public response. Again, the sexual abuse scandal of the Roman Catholic Church, as well as several well publicized cases in Protestant churches, comes to mind.

Marks of the Church – part 1

Bob B. — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:39:52 +0000

The Attributes of the Church^{^[1]} were found by the Reformers to be insufficient to answer two key questions of the Reformation: “How can we recognize a true church? Is the Roman Catholic Church a true church or not?”^{^[2]} The Reformers argued that the Roman Church was not a true church despite their claims of unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity. Unlike the Roman Church of the 16th century, the Reformers recognized and accepted that Scripture makes clear that despite God’s promise to protect and maintain the Church, it is possible that “the Church may become subject to error, may depart from the truth, and may totally degenerate.”^{^[3]} The Reformers argued that this is in fact what had happened to the Roman Church, errors leading to total degeneration.^{^[4]} Although the attributes are certainly present in any true church, for Luther and Calvin the true church could not be fully defined by the four attributes, for in their eyes even false churches and other organizations were claiming them.

What was required were distinguishing marks which could apply only to true churches. Luther and Calvin agreed in their separate writings that only two marks were sufficiently applicable to distinguish a true church. In the Augsburg Confession of 1530 AD, the church is described as “the congregation of saints in which the gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments rightly administered (Article 7).”^{^[5]} John Calvin wrote “Wherever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to Christ’s institution, there, it is not to be doubted, a church of God exists.”^{^[6]} These then are the marks of the true Church:

The right preaching of the Word of God.
The right administration of the Sacraments (baptism and communion).

”The former has reference to purity and correctness of doctrine. The latter means that a duly authorized person administers the sacraments in an appropriate way to people entitled to receive them, and that there is a correct understanding of their efficacy.” ^{^[7]} Right preaching of the Word and right administration of the Sacraments are therefore the “real marks of the Church, since they only: (1) are specific, that is, are characteristics of the Church and no other body; (2) are instruments through which Christ works with His grace and Spirit in the Church; and (3) are formative elements that go into the constitution of the Church.”^{^[8]}

Calvin understood that there would be questions, discussions, and arguments over what exactly the right preaching of the Word entailed and how to maintain the purity of the Sacraments. “Some fault may creep into the administration of either doctrine or sacraments… For not all the articles of true doctrine are the same sort. Some are so necessary to know that they should be certain and unquestioned by all men… Such [as]: 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 faith.”^{^[9]} In order to address these disputed issues and maintain purity in the Church and among her members, later Reformers would add a third mark to the two marks of the church defined by Calvin and Luther: the right administration of discipline.

to be continued

^{^[1]} The Attributes of the Church as discussed in the last news letter are: Unity, Holiness, Catholicity, and Apostolicity.

^{^[2]} Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1994, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 864 ff.

^{^[3]} Louis Berkhoff, Systematic Theology, 1938, Combined 1996 Edition, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, p.576 ff.

^{^[4]} It would be incorrect to argue today that the Roman Catholic Church as a whole is not a true church. Grudem for one argues that the Roman Church is Afar too diverse@ to make general assertions regarding it.

^{^[5]} Grudem, p. 865. Italics mine.

^{^[6]} John Calvin; Institutes of the Christian Religion; volume 2; edited by John T. McNeill; translated by Ford Lewis Battles, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, KY; 1960, reissued 2006, Book 4, Chapter 1, Section 9. Italics mine.

^{^[7]} Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd edition, 1996, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 1057.

^{^[8]} Berkhoff, p. 577.

^{^[9]} Calvin, book 4, chapter 1, section 12.

The Nature of the Church

Bob B. — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:09:55 +0000

“The church is at once a very familiar and a very misunderstood topic… [This] misunderstanding results from the multiple usages of the term church” on one level and on “a more profound level – a lack of understanding of the basic nature of the church.”[1] Both the Old and New Testaments use words which when translated variously describe the church to be:

¨ Individuals or groups called together by God, for His purpose.[2]

¨ The location or structure where those who are called together actually meet.[3]

¨ Multiple, independent groups meeting in places such as a town or a region.[4]

¨ All of the individuals, throughout the whole world, including those living, dead, and yet to be born, who God has called to salvation through Christ Jesus.[5]

What is common to each of these ideas for the word church is the concept of “calling out for the purpose of gathering.”[6] While the root words in the Greek and Hebrew are general terms and do not specifically refer to religious gatherings, two things become clear in their Biblical use. It is God who is doing the calling and this calling is for His greater glory. While we certainly benefit from His calling, the implication and reality is that the church is not about me. The church is all about our Triune God, for “there is no church apart from the redemptive work of Christ and from the renewing operation of the Holy Spirit.”[7]

In the narrative of the first mega-church, God called Israel out of bondage in Egypt to meet with Him and worship Him at Mount Sinai. Today, God still calls people out of bondage and into the worshiping assembly of the church. As His called people, God gave Israel the mission to be an example and witness to other nations of His power and glory. He has called the church of today for the same purpose. We are still God’s chosen people, called together to worship the LORD and to be a witness of His saving power and glory to those around us.

There is one significant difference however between the church of the Old Testament and the church today. While Israel relied upon the ritual of the Law and the promise of a Messiah for salvation, the church today “may walk in the full light provided by Him who is the Son of God… and who on the day of Pentecost made good His promise to grant unto His church the Spirit of truth.”[8] Pentecost is the defining moment for the church. From that day onward the Holy Spirit has been poured out on each and every believer as an empowering presence of the living God, enabling us to be the church as never before. The church is the body of believers in Christ, called by God to gather for His glory, and empowered by the Holy Spirit to fulfill the mission He has called us to fulfill.

[1] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2^nd edition, 1983, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI. p. 1036, 1037.

[2] Ekklesia (Greek) and Qahal (Hebrew) both meaning “called out for gathering.” How these came to be called “church” might be an interesting historical search. It seems to me that the better term might be “gathered ones” or congregation. In fact, some English Bible translations have used congregation or assembly instead of church.

[3] Kuriake (Greek) and Sunagoge (Hebrew) both implying by their use a place set apart for God’s use. For example, the bricks and mortar which we call Rhawnhurst Presbyterian Church. Because of our broad use of the word “church,” some have given to the building a greater importance than it deserves. The building does not become the church until the congregation has gathered therein. As one pastor noted following the destruction of his church due to a fire, “the building is the not the church. The people are the church.”

[4] For example, the church in Aquila and Priscilla’s home, the church at Rome, the Church in China, or PC(USA).

[5] See Louis Berkhoff, Systematic Theology, R. B. Kuiper, The Glorious Body of Christ, and Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology for a full development of the concept of the universal church.

[6] See Berkhoff, et al for a fuller exegesis of the Greek and Hebrew.

[7] Louis Berkhoff, Systematic Theology, 1938, Combined 1996 Edition, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 553.

[8] R. B Kuiper, The Glorious Body of Christ, 1966, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006 Banner of Truth Edith, p. 22.