|
 |
|
| This is the last of the five articles under this heading. These were originally sermons designed to help a local church reach a decision about whether or not it was right to join Churches Together in England and Wales. In the event there was unanimous agreement that the church should not join. The questions we have looked at remain pertinent in recognising how true Christian unity should be manifested and what that has to say about relationships with the ecumenical movement.
The answer to this question has to take into account what we have already considered. In the light of the warnings about false teachers we must not take anything for granted. Scripture alone must be our guide in arriving at our conclusions. Tradition may help us in understanding how and why certain developments have taken place but it cannot be definitive where it contradicts the teaching of Scripture. It is the gospel of the grace of God applied by the Holy Spirit that is formative of the Church as it rests on the foundation of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the gospel that brings people to repentance and faith in the Saviour as they are born again of the Spirit, become Christians and are so made part of the Church.
What is the Church, though? The Church of Rome has its own answer to this question when it claims to be the Catholic or Universal Church. Contrary to what some Protestants maintain much of what Rome says about the Church is biblical, but we believe that its reliance on tradition has fatally distorted its conclusions. The Vatican II document, The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, puts it like this. "Christ established and ever sustains here on earth his Holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as a visible organisation... This is the sole Church of Christ... This Church, constituted and organised as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church... Many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic uniry" (Vatican Council II - The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents Volume 1 p 357, Editor Austin Flannery Fowler Wright Books Ltd 1980).
The Church of England defines the Church in this way. "The visible Church of Christ is a congrega-tion of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same" (Article 19). The Article goes on to say, "As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith".
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) goes into more detail and we quote only the first two sections. "I. The catholick or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body of him that filleth all in all. II. The visible church, which is also catholick or universal under • the gospel, (not confined to one nation, as before under the law) consists of all these throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation."
The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith is even more detailed, containing fifteen sections. The first is similar to the Westminster Confession, though it also refers to "the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace". The second says, "All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted".
Which of these definitions most nearly sums up our convictions? Readers will obviously answer that in the light of their own background and allegiance, but are there some absolutely basic matters on which Christians should agree, whatever particular form their church might possess? If we take the Scriptures as our authority and guide we ought to be able to arrive at some answers, even if we may continue to differ on certain points.
One point must surely be clear. We are saved as individuals, but salvation is not individualistic. By our salvation we are made one with all those others who have been saved. We do not have any choice in that. It is an integral part of God's eternal purpose. When we are spiritually united with Christ we become part of His Body. It is right, therefore, that we be visibly united with an outward manifestation of that Body in a local church. In many cases that will be the church in which we heard the gospel and were saved.
Sometimes, though, people are saved without any church connection and need to look around for fellow believers. It may also happen that as a Christian matures he finds that his church does not appear to conform to scriptural practice, and yet feels it unnecessary to reform. His conscience may tell him he must look elsewhere. Always, though, we should want to manifest our unity with fellow believers. We are not meant to go it alone.
When, though, there are so many competing voices telling us where the Church is to be found it is imperative that we act on the basis of what we believe Scripture says, recognising that in some areas of church order and practice genuine believers hold to differing interpretations. These differences are sad, especially when we remember that it was the prayer of our Lord Jesus Himself that His disciples should be one as He and the Father are one (John 17:21). One day, however, we can be sure that this prayer will be fully answered. In the meantime, despite the differences, we should endeavour to demonstrate our unity as much and as in as many ways as we can.
All this, of course, presents no problems to the Church of Rome. For Roman Catholics their Church is the original Church to which all other Christians should return. The Lord has given it an infallible teaching office that others need to recognise. Rome is right and others are wrong, and until those others return to the Roman fold they cannot enjoy the fullness of grace available in that Church. Hence ecumenical discussions focus on an endeavour to bring about an agreement of understanding between Rome, the Orthodox, and the Churches of the Reformation that might lead to some form of unity in which the primacy of the Pope is recognised.
That is why the Evangelical must have a clear answer to this question about the nature of the Church. Otherwise, how can we legitimately remain outside the ecumenical process? Indeed, there are Evangelicals who argue that we should be part of it.
We maintain that, according to Scripture, as we have already said, true Christian unity is spiritual and therefore already exists as a work of the Holy Spirit. Such unity is both inclusive and exclusive. It belongs only but to all those who are believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and who are subject to His lordship. This points us to the first of two characteristics that we must affirm about the Church.
The Church is characterised by its universality
The Bible teaches that there is one catholic or universal Church of which the Lord Jesus Christ is the only Head. It is His Church. He loved it and gave Himself for it (Ephesians 5:25). He is the One who is building that Church (Matthew 16:18) and will one day bring it to completion. It consists of all those who are born again of the Spirit and who have manifested this by faith in the Lord Jesus and repentance for their sins. They have been reconciled to God through the atoning sacrifice of His Son. God chose them before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4). The Father has given them to His Son (John 6:37). The Lord Jesus laid down His life for them and they will never perish (John 10:15,28). As the Scripture says, they have died with Christ and have risen with Him as a consequence of His work on their behalf (Romans 6:35). God has predestined them to be conformed to the image of the Saviour Himself. They are called, justified, and glorified (Romans 8:29,30). Already they have passed from death to life. United by faith with the Son they have received eternal life (John 5:24).
The universal , Church then, is made up, as the Protestant Confessions declare, of all those in whom this vital, fundamental, and eternal change has taken place. This has sometimes been described as the invisible Church whose membership is only known to God. The distinction is then drawn between that and the visible Church as an organised body in a variety of forms. The latter is imperfect, and perfection will only be enjoyed in eternal glory. Here we must struggle, challenged as we are by the truth that all believers are one in Christ and should be demonstrating that, while at the same time being separated by differences of interpretation of Scripture concerning the nature and shape of the visible church. This requires us to look at a second factor.
The Church's Particularity
From the very beginning the Church, worldwide in its range, has expressed itself visibly and particularly in local congregations. It begins at Jerusalem, and as the gospel is preached elsewhere so new churches spring into being. Sometimes it is simply a matter of a church being in the house of a particular individual, but the emphasis is on the people who make up that congregation of gathered believers. There can only be a true local church where there are believers. A building can never be a church, even though we may loosely call it that. It is simply the place in which the church meets.
In the New Testament each congregation is responsible directly to the Lord as its head, though not in total isolation. He is the one who commends or criticises as we see in Revelation 2,3. He can remove a group's right to be regarded as a church if it proves to be unfaithful and disobedient. Members of each church are led by elders and have a responsibility to one another. There are no special priests within a congregation. The New Testament points to the priesthood of all believers. Nor are there particular individuals who can be addressed as saints. All believers are saints. The word "bishop" is simply another way of describing an elder, and among those set aside for this work some are designated as pastor/teachers. Within each congregation the leaders are to help the members to grow spiritually and to live out their obedience to the Lord. It is their responsibility to see that a biblical discipline is maintained.
There is in all this a simplicity, a directness, and a spiritual reality that we may feel we should be demonstrating in our local congregations. Sadly, we recognise that this is not necessarily the way our churches look today. One reason may lie in spiritual immaturity, another in the historical developments and controversies in Christian history that have led to the divisions among Protestants.
Among issues over which we disagree are church government and baptism, and such disagreements arise not only over different understandings of Scripture but also as a consequence of historical developments that have taken Christians in different directions. Some believe in a connexional system, others in independency of local churches. Some hold to an Episcopal system as in the Church of England. Others have a variant form of oversight as with the Presbyterians and Methodists. Within independency there may be associations or fellowships bringing churches together, while each congregation retains its autonomy. Some of these will have elders and deacons, others pastor and deacons.
Baptism is another major issue of division between Protestants and is likely to remain so. Most denominations believe in its importance as the sign of belonging to the Church. They differ, though, on who can be baptised, what effect, if , any, baptism has on those receiving it, and the manner in which baptisms should be carried out. Within the ranks of those who believe infant baptism is valid there are disagreements on its effect and who can be baptised. For those who insist on believers' baptism only there is a division between those who insist on immersion as the only valid form and others who are open to a variation in mode. All, though, except for a minority, believe that churches are commanded to baptise, and that it is the given outward sign of a Christian.
There are also differing views on the significance of the Lord's Supper. Roman teaching is essentially different from Protestant convictions, and cannot, we believe, be justified from Scripture. Indeed it is contrary to our understanding of the gospel. Yet among Protestants there is a variety of view that goes back to the Reformation. We may well wonder if we have not gone beyond the simplicity of our Lord's institution of it in an attempt to define something of its profundiry. It is still a mark of a Christian church, however, that it remembers the Saviour in the way He commanded.
Forms of worship as well as other areas of doctrine divide us. These are matters that we need to discuss together if we are to come to a better understanding and a closer unity in the light of Scripture. Nevertheless, we should be agreed that there is a clear spiritual divide between Evangelicals and Rome over the gospel itself. This is a vital difference on which there can be no compromise. We believe that the teaching and practice of that Church indicate that it holds to another gospel. Though Rome declares the Lord Jesus Christ to be the Saviour of sinners and says that salvation is all of grace it has added to the gospel in a way that negates these other statements. In other words, though it sounds arrogant to say it, we have to declare that the Church of Rome is not the true Church it claims to be. It gives the present writer no pleasure to say this. We share some basic and important doctrines in common over against liberal Protestants. On a number of moral issues we are agreed, where others have turned aside from scriptural standards. The devotion of many Roman Catholics to their beliefs might well put some of us to shame. Yet until there is agreement about the way of salvation there can be no way forward.
What, though, about the differences among ourselves? Rather than simply accept uncritically the tradition we may have inherited in matters of contention we should think seriously about how that tradition matches up to Scripture. Does it seem to be based fairly and squarely on the teaching and practice of the New Testament? We need to be satisfied that it does, and if we discover that it does not we should be prepared to reform.
At the same time, to what extent does Christian unity in a visible form demand or imply uniformity of belief and practice, or can we be content in this imperfect world with a looser form of association? It is not the purpose of this article to argue for or condemn any particular system among Protestants. Readers must come to their own judgement as to the degree of closeness the various groupings display to the scriptural pattern. We must obviously, though, belong to the church we believe is closest to Scripture, but that need not mean living in isolation from others in our locality who are one with us on the gospel.
Where there is faithfulness to the gospel and wherever believers meet together we can recognise that there is part of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. |
|---|
|
| back
to magazine page |
next
article |
|
