Introduction
I was walking down the street with a staff member from a local campus ministry during the spring semester of my freshman year at college. We talked about many different things. Eventually, I asked him why the campus ministry organization got started. He said, “Because the church wasn’t doing its job to reach college students.”
I thought about that for a moment. “I’d like to see the church start doing a better job,” I said. “What would our organization do if the church started doing its job?”
“I wish it would,” he said. “If it did, we’d probably pack up and move on somewhere else.” He paused. “But that will never happen,” he said with finality.
“Why?” I asked.
“Because the church is too messed up and is going in the wrong direction,” he said.
“I’d like to change that,” I answered.
“I hope you can. But don’t get your hopes up,” he replied.
This conversation has been etched in my memory from that day in the spring of 1998. In fact, I believe that it catalyzed my call to church leadership. A few days later, I had an experience with God strong enough that I changed my major from Electrical Engineering to History and started on the course toward a career in church leadership.
This conversation helped me to rediscover the questions I had about what the church and what ministry was all about. I had been involved in a couple of high school ministries, which called themselves “para-Church groups.” These groups always emphasized the need to “reach our school for Christ.” Now that I was in college, several different groups I had encountered were using the same slogan, although on a grander scale: the University of Illinois.
Throughout the rest of that year, I began to make observations about this campus group I was a part of. It really looked a lot like a church, even though it claimed not to be one. It did many of the same things, and filled a very similar role in my life as the church I had grown up in had done. Even from that time, I began to ask questions about what made the church the church, and these other (Christian) organizations “not-the-church.”
As I have continued through my college experience and beyond, and now work with college students in a ministry capacity, I have met many others who have asked the same questions. Some have taken the “non-church Christian campus organization” to be their church. Others have become a part of local churches that have a “ministry to college students.” Still others have joined churches that are predominately made up of students. They ask the same question – why is this (or that) group a church, and why is that group not a church, when they look very similar? Why does that group say that everyone needs to be involved in a local church along with their affiliation with the group, while this other group looks unfavorably on that?
As I began to sort through the issues, and as I watched other people attempting to answer these questions, I noticed another phenomenon at work: competition. Often the context for the conversations that worked on these questions of what I came to know as ecclesiology involved students from different groups talking to members of other groups about how good their particular ministry was. In fact, the conversation was typically about why their group was “the best.” Thus, when one group became the best, all the other group members had to begin to justify why theirs was, indeed, the best.
I began to notice that this sort of conversation consumed a lot of time and energy. Furthermore, I realized that many of these groups (among the students) seemed to spend a lot of time developing relationships with people to keep them from leaving their group and going to another. And whenever people became disaffected, their friends were there, from three or four other groups waiting to snap them up.
All of these things provided the impetus for me to investigate the theology of the church – ecclesiology – and how it relates to this campus ministry context. In doing so, I hope to bring some sort of answer to the ecclesial questions surrounding various organizations – are they churches, or aren’t they? Moreover, I hope to provide a framework for discussion of ecclesiological issues in the campus context, so that we may find common ground upon which to stand and work together. I believe that one of those frameworks is the history of the traditions of the church.
We as evangelicals like to believe that we are “doing church” the way the early church did church. We go to the New Testament for models and mandates for how church is to be and what church is to do. Yet, while we are all trying to “be the New Testament church” or “be a part of the apostolic tradition” or whatever words we use, we discover that there is a tremendous diversity of ways of seeing and doing “the New Testament church.” In effect, many of our statements about what the early church did or thought or was are filtered through a certain way of reading or seeing the New Testament and the history of the church.
Therefore, in this paper, we will approach this topic from a historical perspective. Examining the different voices in the history of the church will reveal to us the sources of many of our assumptions and presuppositions about the nature of the church. Moreover, they will provide some level of critique to our current ways of doing business. Furthermore, they will likely free us to look beyond our current modes and paradigms to work out new ways of being the church that we have not yet tried.
We will begin by outlining the views of three current campus groups on the nature of the church. There will be as little commentary on those views at that point as can be managed, so that their views may stand for themselves. We will then proceed to examine the voices of the tradition(s) of the church throughout history, from the New Testament on up through the current day. We will then attempt to get the voices to converse with one another, ultimately drawing some ministry conclusions for the resolution of our questions, as we look ahead at ministry in the 21st century. Hopefully, what we discover will not be of use just to campus ministry participants and leaders but to the church as a whole. The whole church wrestles with interacting with other Christian groups, some of which are churches and some of which are not. Examining this in light of campus ministry acts as a sort of case study for wider evaluation.
This paper is intended for a wide readership, from campus ministry students and leaders to seminary professors and denominational leaders, along with Christian believers of whatever affiliation. That being said, this will be a paper with footnotes and some theological jargon. There will also be many characters and sources who are not necessarily well-known, but are significant for our discussion. If needed, I will provide a glossary of terms and people to accompany this paper to aid in its ease of use. However, due to time and length requirements, a glossary will not be included in the first edition.
Case Study Voices
We will begin by examining three current campus ministries at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. In October 2003, I solicited interviews with approximately ten campus ministry leaders from various organizations on campus. I initially made an appeal in a meeting of the campus ministry staff members known as the Evangelical Christian Union (ECU). I obtained permission to e-mail them to set up appointments. The e-mail I sent them has been incorporated into this paper as Appendix I.
As I stated in the e-mail, interviews are essential to research of this sort because most campus ministry organizations do not produce many official documents stating their beliefs and practice on this particular subject. While I have my own anecdotal evidence of some of the issues (as I showed in the introduction), I wanted to approach this subject on a more solid footing.
Unfortunately, the response was unremarkable. Therefore, I was only able to interview three campus ministry leaders, two by conversation and one through an e-mail survey. I interviewed a staff member from InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and a staff member from a local denominational ministry through a tape-recorded conversation. I interviewed a graduate student from Campus Crusade for Christ (locally known as Cru) via e-mail. Two of them are recorded here: InterVarsity and Campus Crusade. I will do my best to express a summary of their thoughts on their own terms.
InterVarsity[2]
InterVarsity operates out of a “hybrid ecclesiology.” It states that it is a part of the “church universal” since it is doing the ministry of the church. However, it is not a local church. The staff member I interviewed wanted to make it clear that IV is a part of the greater church (as he put it, they are not a “baseball team”) as respects its activities – teaching, preaching, discipleship, formation – but it does not “go the whole way” to become a local church.
InterVarsity perceives the church to be primarily a local congregation in a geographical setting. This local church has a demographic of all ages and occupations. The local congregation is the expression of the unity of all believers. The local church carries on a multitude of tasks that provide for people’s needs in their congregation – marrying/burying, Christian education of children, marital and career counseling, etc. Churches tend to be inward, doing ministry within the walls of the church. The church is all the believers in a local area, the church universal, and a single house church.
This staff member called into question the full ecclesiality of many churches where only one demographic is represented. This would include suburban churches who have no poor and no diversity of ethnic groups. Since the demographics of the communities are bad, the churches are not as fully ecclesial.
InterVarsity intentionally does not try to be that. They prefer, instead, “to do one thing well,” which is ministry to college students. They do this by designing structures that are fluid enough for “getting the job done” while “respecting the rest of the body of Christ,” which they believe is an expression of the New Testament church. Recognizing that “undergraduates are no longer children, but adults,” InterVarsity structures itself in such a way as to free them, as the laity, to carry out their immense potential for ministry and mission. They hope to inspire students to create their own vision for mission and ministry at their schools. This ministry takes place primarily “on their dorm floor or in their lab. Christian community is expressed primarily in the residence halls.” Furthermore, they realize that it is “myopic” for undergraduates to only be a part of a church that is made up of undergraduates. Therefore, they structure themselves so that they keep undergraduates connected to local churches. However, it is “unworkable” to do everything directly through the local church.
InterVarsity deems it disrespectful and unhelpful to keep college students disconnected from local churches and their denominations. They “attempt to connect all Christians with faithful, believing denominations and churches.” Therefore, they see themselves “as in partnership with local churches.” Furthermore, they do not do baptism or communion because they want to be in unity with all Christians, including Lutherans and Catholics. Doing so would equate InterVarsity with other local congregations, and would alienate the unity that they are trying to build. However, in exceptional circumstances, they have done both baptism and communion, but it is discouraged.
InterVarsity grew out of the YMCA movement as the YMCA began to be increasingly liberal and conservative-evangelical students became uncomfortable with it. At that time, InterVarsity “could have become a movement of local student churches, but it chose not to.” About the same time, denominational ministries were started, which attempted to help those who were already involved in those denominations stay in those denominations while at college. As time progressed, these denominational ministries became increasingly liberal. Thus, where there had once been a movement uniting all Christians (the YMCA), now there were many, denominationally and theologically divided ministries. At this point, from InterVarsity’s perspective, campus ministries lost the drive to “reach out to the university.” Students found the need to organize to be an evangelical voice together to give support for mission. In the 1940s and 1950s InterVarsity was the only consistently evangelical ministry going on campus.
Times have changed for the ministry since its inception. Now, “the group needs a strong central meeting with a worship band.” This was not the case before, when it was primarily Bible studies in dorms. They have decided to rent a building to make the large group meeting better-run.
The InterVarsity staff member sees three divisions of campus ministries at the University of Illinois. First, there are the denominational foundations – Catholics, Lutherans, Disciples of Christ, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians and Baptists. These are intended to be local churches made up primarily of students and faculty. They are not fully churches, (in the sense described above), because they are made up primarily of students. They fail the “demographic” test. Moreover, they are perpetually in difficulty because they are trying to be a student church and a campus ministry at the same time. These difficulties arise because local churches need youth groups and children’s ministries, etc., which campus churches cannot provide. Finally, these churches are often funded by endowments, which typically decreases their need to “reach the campus.” They take a more passive outlook toward the campus “being there” instead of “reaching out.”
Second, there are the “Recent Student Churches.” These are churches made up of students and have come on the scene more recently than the denominational ministries. These churches are, so far, not invested in buildings. One has attempted to “spin off” a local “community” church when they discovered that their graduates’ needs were not being met.
The third group is made up of local evangelical churches that have their own college ministries. Some of these churches are “non-denominational” and some are evangelical denominational churches. These churches tend to incorporate college students into a special ministry (akin to a youth group) within the mission of the congregation.
Corollary to these is Twin City Bible Church, which has always considered itself “a community church with a strong emphasis on student ministry.” They approach this by maintaining good relationships with groups like Campus Crusade and InterVarsity. This church has deliberately avoided having “their own campus ministry” and instead does campus ministry through the partnership with the “para-church” groups.
The staffer freely admits that in this situation, “ecclesiology is all over the map.” Within this complex, divided system, the unity of the church is set aside. Groups “pay lip service to unity” while going their separate ways and competing for students.
American ecclesiology is market-driven and capitalist – everyone does their own thing, and they really don’t think about cooperation much. Everyone’s got their own vision. When they think of the church, they think of them and a few of their friends, and the first thing they think about is ‘what does God want us to do?’ The thing they don’t think about is… the broader group of Christians, and the question is ‘what is God already doing and how can I be a part of it?’ American ecclesiology is competitive, and everybody does their own thing.
Conscientious of this, the InterVarsity staff attempt to get the Christians together once a month “as a way of helping the church of Jesus Christ find some ways of expressing our unity.” Yet, the system remains inherently competitive, because there are 20 groups to be involved in, and freshmen have to choose between them. “That doesn’t mean there’s mean competition, but there is some competition.” This encourages groups to compete to be as good as other groups in various areas – worship and discipleship, etc.
These campus groups “reach out to a lot of the same people.” And they do well to keep the competition to a minimum. However, some groups become aggressive and will not “let students go” when they have moved on to a different group. There is some stereotyping that goes on – comparing and contrasting groups – but it is not too serious. Sometimes InterVarsity feels “out-recruited” by other groups. The staff member finds that one group in particular is very aggressive. New groups on campus encourage greater and greater fragmentation of the Christians, because no one is successful in reaching out to only non-Christians. Therefore, InterVarsity encourages students to be involved in one group only – so as to help them grow, instead of switching regularly.
Given the multiplicity of ministries, InterVarsity has trouble referring people to churches that are trying to incorporate people in their own ministries, to the exclusion of InterVarsity. This means that when other churches begin actively recruiting Sunday attenders for their “campus ministry,” InterVarsity has to take a second look at encouraging participation in those churches.
Regarding the statement, “If the church were doing its job, there would be no need for InterVarsity,” he stated that such a statement “does not take into account the fluidity of how the church needs to organize and operate.” However, he did say that such a situation would be “really different” than the one we have now, and he would have to think through it.
Campus Crusade for Christ[3]
It is difficult to assess Campus Crusade for Christ’s self-understanding since the staff were unavailable for interview. However, through the e-mail interview with one of their graduate students, who has been heavily involved since he was a freshman, it is possible to discern some aspects of their ecclesiology.
It seems that there is a separation between the official corporate understanding of Campus Crusade and that of the members (and perhaps even some of the staff). Campus Crusade for Christ’s official position is that they are not a church. From their website:
Campus Crusade for Christ considers itself an arm of the Christian church with a focus in areas like evangelism and discipleship with college students. We work closely with pastors and churches throughout the United States and in every country where we have ministry activities. Our statement of faith clearly maintains our belief in the deity of Christ, and in the authority and reliability of the Bible.
[4]However, “if someone is really plugged in to the movement, I would say (and most of our staff people would agree) that for all effective purposes it is a church.”
[5] Thus, according to the (inter)national organization, it is part of the “church universal” but not “a local church.” The demographic argument seems partially at play here: “[s]ome would argue that the lack of older or younger people detracts from its ‘churchiness [sic].’”
According to the interviewee, the church is
[a] body of believers gathering and growing together in their obedience to and intimacy with Jesus Christ. As displayed in the various churches of Acts, this group should also work together in prayer, evangelism, and the service of other saints. It should also be marked by teaching consistent with scripture and by sincere love.
Seemingly, Campus Crusade, for all practical purposes, fits that definition.
Through Crusade I receive sound teaching, I meet for worship and prayer, I develop close relationships with other believers, I am able to engage in discipleship and evangelism -in short I am challenged, encouraged, and equipped to better experience the fullness of God.
Campus Crusade for Christ began under Bill Bright and his wife, Vonette, in 1951 at UCLA. Campus Crusade then spread to campuses throughout the nation and the world under Bright’s leadership. As for the context from which Crusade sprung, “Bill [Bright] became a Christian through an evangelical Presbyterian church.” However, the interviewee suggested that Presbyterianism is not the primary theological tradition within Crusade these days. Crusade hopes “to turn lost students into Christ-centered laborers.” This is done “to fulfill the Great Commission, hastening the return of Jesus Christ.”
To accomplish this, Campus Crusade works through two modes: evangelism and discipleship, since “[t]he Great Commission tells us to go and make disciples (Christ-centered laborers), not just to go out and make Christians.” Evangelism works in three ways: a) relational (“with family and friends”) b) natural (sharing the Gospel with people through natural conversation) and c) “ministry mode” (engaging complete strangers with a spiritual conversation intended to lead to the Gospel).
The other half of Campus Crusade’s method is discipleship, according to the models outlined by Dr. Robert Coleman in
The Master Plan of Evangelism.
[6] This involves “accountability” wherein individuals confess their sins to one another in Bible study groups.
Regarding the church as a whole in campus ministry at the University of Illinois, the interviewee differentiated Campus Crusade from the other evangelical ministries in “that our efforts in evangelism and our very intentional discipleship structure differentiate us from other campus groups, which seem to be focused more on teaching and fellowship.” Regarding cooperation with other groups, the interviewee recognized significant cooperation between Campus Crusade, InterVarsity and Illini Life
[7] for “events… facilities… [and] information.” The local Crusade chapter has ties to two minority ethnic churches.
Yet, Crusade has the strongest connection with two local churches: Stratford Park Bible Chapel and Twin City Bible Church. “these two churches consider Crusade and IV to be their ministry to the U of I campus. Both have on numerous occasions allowed us to use their buildings, tables, chairs, or other materials.” In particular, they widen the demographic involved in Crusade: “Adults at both of these churches have come alongside Crusade students and supported them in their efforts.” As a part of this arrangement, Crusade students also support these churches, through giving, volunteering for nursery, teaching Sunday school, ushering, music ministry, etc.” One church seems to have an especially strong relationship with Crusade:
At Stratford Park, the congregation takes extra steps to support us. Each year, students are "adopted" by families (meaning they are invited over for meals, use of laundry facilities, etc.). The Missions Committee also gives thousands of dollars to send Crusade students on summer missions projects as well as year-long STINTs (short-term international ministry).
These two ministries represent two of the largest evangelical ministries at the University of Illinois. Their statements of faith can be found in Appendix II. Through them we can see much of the length and breadth of evangelical ministry at the University of Illinois.
Historical Voices
At different times in history, the church has faced different issues that have forced it to define itself. These issues have varied at different times and places. Each issue brought out a different side or different “take” on the church. As we quickly sweep through two thousand years of history, we will discover what these issues were and how they have flavored the church we see today.
Determining the shape of a New Testament ecclesiology is not merely a simple task of looking for occurrences of the term ekklesia and determining its context. While this is fruitful in some ways, it completely misses the sense of the New Testament ecclesiology.
In fact, the entirety of the New Testament takes the church for granted. It is the context for each one of the twenty-seven books individually, as well as the whole of Scripture. Each of Paul’s letters was written to a church, or to a person leading a church. All the non-Pauline epistles were written to at least one church, if not as circular letters. Revelation was written to at least seven churches. The Gospels were written, it seems, as catechetical works – designed to communicate the faith to those desiring to learn. That catechesis took place in the context of the church. Even Luke-Acts, written to “Theophilus,” seems to be written with a wider audience in mind than merely one person. Furthermore, it is clear from ancient literary practice that the Scriptures were invariably read out loud, usually in a group. Even when documents were read privately, people did not “read in their heads,” but instead pronounced each syllable. This was almost a necessity given that there were no spaces between words and no punctuation in written documents. It was necessary to hear the syllables to determine which ones went together. “Silent reading” came along much later.
Thus, it is clear that the New Testament and the church are related far more closely than a mere literary analysis would provide. The New Testament documents were written to the church and for the church. Moreover, they were read almost exclusively in the context of the church’s worship and instruction. These facts mandate that every reading of the New Testament involve a significant amount of “reading between the lines” in order to determine its full impact upon ecclesiology.
Adding to the confusion is that most (if not all) of the ecclesiologies we will discuss in the following pages believe that they are following the spirit, if not the letter of the New Testament’s view of the church. The reader will discover the vast diversity of these traditions, which all believe they are “doing things the way Jesus and the Apostles did – or at least would want us to do in our situation.” Perhaps they have “read between the lines” differently.
Therefore, at this point, we will present several New Testament passages that come up regularly in ecclesiological thought, but will hold discussion to a minimum until we have listened to the length and breadth of the church tradition. These texts contain some of the key concepts and metaphors used by many in their ecclesiological reflection.
Table of New Testament Ecclesiological References (In Canonical Order)
|
Reference:
| Significance
|
Matthew 16:16 – 19
| 1) Confession that Jesus is the Messiah
2) Building the Church on the Rock
3) Giving the Keys of the Kingdom (to Peter?)
4) Power of Binding and Loosing (to Peter?)
5) One of three uses of the term “ekklesia” in the canonical Gospels
|
Matthew 18:15 – 17
| 1) Discipline to be shown to sinful “brothers and sisters”
2) The final two occurrences of “ekklesia” in the canonical Gospels
|
Matthew 18:18
| Whole group has power to bind and loose
|
Matthew 18:19 – 20
| Where two or three are gathered, there is Jesus.
|
Matthew 28:17
| The disciples worship Jesus (i.e., give honor to him as God)
|
Matthew 28:18 – 20
| Commissioning the disciples to make disciples, baptizing into the name of the Triune God and teaching the disciples to obey all the commands of Christ
|
Mark 8:27 – 30
| Confession of Jesus as Messiah. Contrast with Matthew 16:16 – 19, above, and Luke 9:18 – 21, below.
|
Luke 9:18 – 21
| Confession of Jesus as Messiah. Contrast with Matthew 16:16 – 19 and Mark 8:27 – 30, above.
|
Acts 1:8
| 1) Recipients of the Holy Spirit
2) Given power by Holy Spirit
3) Will be witnesses for Jesus in the whole world
|
Acts 2:1 – 4
| 1) Began at Pentecost
2) Believers filled with the Holy Spirit
|
Acts 2:14 – 37
| Basic message in “first sermon” about the death, resurrection and exaltation of Jesus as Christ for salvation.
|
Acts 2:42 – 47
| The believers:
1) “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching”
2) “to the fellowship”
3) “to the breaking of bread”
4) “to prayer”
5) were “filled with awe” (NIV)
6) did many wonders and signs
7) were together and held everything in common
8) sold possessions to care for the needy (among them)
9) met together daily at the temple
10) ate meals in their homes, praising God
11) grew numerically daily.
|
Acts 5:11
| First occurrence of “ekklesia” in Acts – the death of Sapphira, referring (seemingly) to the church in Jerusalem
|
Romans 8:9 – 11
| The members of the church at Rome are indwelt by the Spirit of God/ Spirit of Christ
|
I Corinthians 12:1 – 31
| 1) Diversity of Gifts
2) Diversity of responsibilities
3) One body with many parts
4) The Body of Christ
|
II Corinthians 3:16 – 18
| Those who have turned to the Lord are increasingly transformed into his likeness
|
Galatians 3:26 – 29
| One new family made out of all the nations of the world and all economic statuses and both genders
|
Ephesians 2:11 – 18
| 1) Gentiles permitted to join the citizenship of Israel
2) Christ made one new human being out of hostile nations, through reconciliation on the cross
|
Colossians 3:11
| Abolition of ethnic and legal statuses in light of Christ
|
I Peter 2:9 – 10
| 1) Royal Priesthood, holy nation, people devoted to God
2) Chosen by God
3) In order to proclaim God’s praise
|
Revelation 19:7; 21:2, 9; 22:17
| The Bride of Christ (See also John 3:27 – 30)
|
These are the major themes that the rest of church history has picked up on. We could add a diversity of references to this list in which the church is described in both unity and plurality. There are many occurrences of “ekklesia” speaking of the entire church, as well as a particular congregation in a particular location. There is even one place
[8] where it refers to the people of Israel in the desert. Nevertheless, the passages in the table above reflect the nascent ecclesiology of the first disciples in the documents of the New Testament.
The Church is One
The ancient church regularly spoke of the church as one. In the
Dialogue with Trypho, Justin Martyr, in making a typology of Old Testament symbols apply to the church, says that the church, while it has many individuals in it, is actually one, and called by one name.
[10] Irenaeus, in preaching against various Gnostic teachers, emphasizes that the church, “although [it is] scattered throughout the whole world,”
[11] still maintains one faith throughout the world
[12] – which he states in a creedal form regarding the Father and the Son.
[13] He further implies the church’s unity when he says that “where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the church, and every kind of grace.”
[14] Since there can be only one Spirit of God, the church must be one, and its teaching must be “consistent.”
[15] Cyprian carries on this theme in one of his letters, where he uses the unity of God and Christ to demonstrate that there can be only one church.
[16] Moreover, God will judge those who create schisms,
[17] because, as Irenaeus says, they have not respected the significance of the unity of the body of Christ.
[18] The Apostles handed down the same faith in every place, so there should not be any disunity unless it is an innovation.
[19] Tertullian emphasizes that this unity is displayed locally.
[20] The members of the church demonstrate their unity by sharing everything – except their wives.
[21] The local unity was so close that he can say that in confession, both the one confessing and the ones hearing the confessions are Christ for one another.
[22] It is possible to say that the unity of the local body was indicative of the unity of the church throughout the world. “We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different
from theirs.”
[23] He laughs at the heretics’ suggestion that the whole church went astray – if they had, why would they all have come to such unity in the process?
[24] It is clear from these statements (especially those of Tertullian) that there was no strong central structure in the church that held it together during this time period. The implication of Tertullian’s question is that there was no way for the church to maintain unity centrally if a particular congregation decided to go astray. There is wide support for the New Testament’s usage of “church” meaning both the local body and the entirety of Christians throughout the world, all located in local bodies. Clement of Rome
[25] speaks of both the congregation at Rome and at Corinth as “the church.”
[26] Polycarp follows the same scheme when he writes to Philippi,
[27] and the Smyrnean author of Polycarp’s martyrdom does as well.
[28] Irenaeus speaks of the church as a local body in one case when he is describing the church’s ability to raise people from the dead in his own day.
[29] When Tertullian describes the Christian way of life, he describes it from within the context of the local body of believers.
[30]For these writers, the unity of the church was visible through the bishops of each locality or congregation. The local bodies were seen to be so unified that Ignatius,
[31] writing c. 108, can say to several churches that he saw the whole church in the person of the bishop.
[32] He goes so far to say that those who are not obedient to the bishop or are not “with him” are not a part of the church, and do not belong to God.
[33]Cyprian says much on this score as well. “The glory of the church is the glory of the bishop.”
[34] In one letter, he grieves that he cannot leave the church to become unified with several “confessors,” but since there is only one church, they must return.
[35] When they do, he quotes them as saying that “in the Catholic Church there ought to be one bishop.”
[36] This is Cyprian’s primary dispute with Novatian – that he has disrupted the unity of the church.
[37] Furthermore, he says, “the bishop is in the Church, and the Church is in the bishop; and if anyone be not with the bishop… he is not in the Church.”
[38] Moreover, the bishops are to be unified, since “he cannot possess the garment of Christ who parts and divides the Church of Christ.”
[39] Thus, it is clear that the ancient writers described the unity of the church through the unity of doctrine, the unity within the local body and the adherence to the bishops. This has significance for the other three marks they described: holy, Catholic and apostolic.
The Church is Holy
The ancient church perceived its holiness in two interlocked ways: the church was holy in that it was set apart and chosen by God; it was also holy in the way it was to live. The notion of being set apart was emphasized mostly by the earlier writers in this period. For Clement of Rome, the church is the Father’s “choice portion,” his inheritance, and his own nation taken from among the nations.
[40] Irenaeus says that God chose a Church that will be made holy by fellowship with Jesus Christ.
[41] This fellowship with Jesus Christ required a certain way of life.
It is clear that being a part of the ancient church required a lifestyle that stood in significant discontinuity with the surrounding society. This was considered essential enough to the church that if someone breached the Christian lifestyle in any way, they were no longer considered Christians.
[42] As Ignatius says, those who are called Christians have to actually
be Christians – and act in the ways that respect Christ.
[43] There are certain professions, that while they are respected by society, are not to be practiced by Christians because they violate the law of Christ.
[44] This lifestyle of those in the church is to challenge even the basic economic structures of the day. Tertullian challenges the trade that he sees as inherently covetous, since covetousness and idolatry are linked.
[45] How much more would he challenge American consumerism! In his
Apology, Tertullian points out that the Christians live such good lives that others comment on how much they love one another.
[46] Christians hold to certain types of morality that support fellowship with Christ – especially the sexual morals of heterosexuality and monogamy.
[47] Christians are not to make or worship idols, because they have renounced them in the baptismal confession.
[48] Tertullian further denies that believers should go to shows in the arena, because people are unable to focus on God during the show, and to cheer on what is happening in the arena goes against the teachings of Christ.
[49] Other authors make equally strong statements. Gregory Thaumaturgus states that all covetousness and greed will be condemned and the person excommunicated.
[50] Origen, in
Against Celsus writes that the purpose of Christianity is to become wise.
[51] Wisdom is naturally a lifestyle as much as it is knowing certain facts. Yet, this lifestyle still has certain significant elements of teaching.
The Church is Catholic
The Church is called “Catholic” because it extends through all the world, from one end of the earth to another. Also because it teaches universally and without omission all the doctrines which ought to come to man’s knowledge… and because it brings under the sway of true religion all classes of men, rulers and subjects, learned and ignorant; and because it universally treats and cures every type of sin, committed by means of soul and body, and possesses in itself every kind of virtue which can be named, in deeds and words, and spiritual gifts of every kind.
[52]This passage from Cyril of Jerusalem’s
Catechetical Lectures summarizes the early church’s understanding of the term “catholic.” It seems that, by and large, the suitability and availability of the Christian faith was assumed by the early church, and thereby was not discussed very fully. Irenaeus uses the parable of the evil tenants to explain that the church is for the Gentiles, therefore showing the church’s ubiquity.
[53] However, most of the time, “catholicity” stands for the fact that the church has the fullness of what is required for salvation.
Theophilus of Antioch compares the world to a great sea. The congregations of the church are safe harbors where the teachings of truth survive.
[54] Irenaeus argues in the preface to Book 3 of
Against Heresies that the church holds “the only true and life-giving faith.”
[55] Because of this, only the church is able to offer a pure offering to God from his creation.
[56] According to Tertullian, the church’s teaching is not merely a philosophy or “worldview” but something that brings about activity on a truly spiritual plane – soundly defeating demons – thus bringing about salvation.
[57] Over the course of three chapters in
On Prescription Against Heretics, he further argues that the apostles did not leave anything out when they proclaimed the message of Christ, and that it was transmitted faithfully down to his day.
[58] This message may be summed up in “the rule of faith”
[59] which he believes to be inherently scriptural.
[60] Cyprian summarized the teaching of the church to this point quite bluntly when he said, “there is no salvation to any except in the Church.”
[61] Yet, this teaching is dependent on the next “mark” of the church – its apostolicity. Most of the arguments made regarding the catholicity of the church also refer to its apostolicity, to which we now turn.
The Church is Apostolic
The affirmation that the church is Apostolic speaks of two things – the source of its truth and the necessity of obedience. In the term “apostolic,” we see the ancient church justifying the other three “marks.” Fundamentally, the appeal to apostolicity is an appeal to the belief that the way the church was the church in their day was the same as the way the church was in Jesus’ day and among the first generation of Christians. In other words, they were claiming to be the “New Testament Church.”
We see the first claim of apostolicity in the belief that the apostles and their successors handed the faith down unaltered from its original form. All the major writers justify their arguments this way.
[62] For instance, Clement of Rome states that “the apostles received the good news from the Lord Jesus Christ for us” who then established some as bishops for believers yet to come.
[63] Moreover, apostolicity meant something to the ancient church more than merely the means of handing down the faith. It implied a high level of obedience to those who had been appointed leaders in the church, since it was held that they had been “tested and approved” in the faith.
We see church leaders urging people to obedience throughout the literature from the time period. It may come as a surprise to those of the Free Church tradition, with its emphasis on freedom of conscience and congregational polity, which it argues from the practice of the ancient church, that obedience to the bishops was such a significant topic in the first generation after the apostles – namely Clement of Rome and Ignatius. Clement urges the Corinthians to be subject to their leaders like soldiers are to military leaders.
[64] He bases this on the nature of the body, which involves mutual submission, so that there is mutual help.
[65] He further expresses that there is to be a division in various roles in worship – just like the Levitical priesthood.
[66] The apostles appointed the members of the episcopate in their wisdom, so no one should reject these leaders.
[67]Ignatius
[68] is even more blunt on this point. The Ephesians will be made holy when they are joined in submission to the bishop and elders.
[69] In the next breath, he addresses them as equals, calling them “fellow learners.”
[70] However, they are still to follow the bishops, since the bishops have been appointed by Jesus Christ.
[71] He continues in this tone in his letters to the Magnesians,
[72] the Trallians,
[73] the Philadelphians,
[74] the Smyrneans,
[75] and in his letter to Polycarp.
[76]For the later writers, obedience to the bishops because of their apostolic source is almost assumed. This is Irenaeus’ argument when he rejects the heretics’ claims on the interpretation of scripture.
[77] He quotes a version of Acts 22:25 where the bishops “rule the Church of the Lord”
[78] as a part of his argument in favor of the orthodox way of reading the scriptures about Christ.
One of Tertullian’s arguments against the heretics is that their leadership is very disordered – and that disorder is not a mark of the apostolic faith.
[79] Cyprian concurs: there can be only one bishop at a time in one place administering the church.
[80] Obedience is the necessary conclusion to apostolicity. From this obedience to the bishops locally stems the authority of the councils later on.
The four “marks of the church” used in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed summarize the views of the ancient church to that point. The ancient writers often summarized them in the term “mother church.” This term first is used by Clement of Alexandria,
[81] picked up by Cyprian, and carried on into the medieval church. From the preceding discussion, it is clear that they perceived the church to be one in its unity, although organized locally. The church’s lifestyle was to be lived out locally in obedience to Christ through obedience to the leaders of the church, who had been appointed because of their obedience to Christ’s commands. They held the teaching that was the fullness of what God had provided for salvation, and it was for everyone. Lifestyle was key to the way of life for Christians. However, in the medieval period, that began to change.
Augustine
Augustine’s ecclesiology developed amidst the Donatist controversy. Thus, much of his ecclesiology answers the condemnations of the Donatists against the rest of the church. Through this, he laid the groundwork for the entire medieval period of the church in Western Europe.
In the
Confessions 3.3, we see a subtle shift that has been occurring over the course of many years. For the first time, Augustine names the church as a building.
[82] It had taken nearly four hundred years for this definition to become widespread in addition to the others.
[83]Augustine’s greatest ecclesiological contribution falls not in the innovation of a new meaning for “church” (which is not his responsibility), but in the nature of the lifestyle that Christians are to live. He firmly upholds strong morality.
[84] He upholds the necessity of apostolicity.
[85] Unlike Clement of Rome,
[86] however, ministers can be “profane and polluted men” when they administer the sacraments because “holiness is incapable of contamination.”
[87] In saying this, Augustine paved the way for the church to be seen primarily through the sacraments and through the liturgical practices, not primarily through a redeemed way of life – although this was doubtless not his intention.
[88] God’s grace is conferred almost mechanically despite the lack of “new life” in the minister or the one receiving the sacrament. In so doing, he set up the church for Aquinas.
Thomas Aquinas
The ecclesiology of Thomas Aquinas can be summed up in a phrase from the Supplement to the Summa Theologica: “the Church is founded on faith and the sacraments.”
[89] Most of Aquinas’ theology of the church must be extrapolated from the Summa because despite the vast number of questions, the nature of the church is not addressed directly. This is, itself, significant, because the purpose of the Summa was not to define the nature of the church over against another definition. The nature of the church is assumed – therefore not discussed. However, we do find out about the nature of the church through his discussion of the sacrament of penance.
First, “the grace which is given in the sacraments descends from the head to the members.”
[90] This necessitates that since the only persons who truly are ministers in the church are those who consecrate the Eucharist, the only people to whom the members of the church may confess are the priests, since grace is given and received in penance and absolution.
[91] This path of logic continues, wending its way to another conclusion about the church’s hierarchy: “Confession makes a man submit to the keys of the church. But Paradise is opened by those keys.”
[92] Thus, it can be said that since all need to confess, all are under the jurisdiction of those who hold the keys, making it impossible for there to be salvation outside of the church. In fact, the church seems to save. Moreover, since the power of the keys and the grace in the sacraments comes through Jesus Christ, of whom the priests are merely servants, priests may be undeniably wicked and remain able to dispense grace, since they are merely God’s instruments, not the source of the grace itself. Aquinas shows the hierarchy of the church to be essential to its nature, since only through the hierarchy may grace be dispensed.
The Reformation of doctrine and practice in the church in the 16th century and beyond also created significant changes in the ecclesiology of the church – whether in the major reformers (Luther and Calvin), the radical reformation or the Roman Catholic Church itself. We shall see that they answered Aquinas and his system of the church, and have been the predominating factors in shaping the current Evangelical expression of faith.
Martin Luther
Martin Luther followed a very simple ecclesiology: The church is the everlasting congregation of the saints and exists wherever the Word of God is rightly preached and the sacraments are rightly administered.
[93] This Word of God must be preached without the addition of tradition,
[94] and this preaching shows the true greatness of the church, even when the world thinks the church is weak.
[95] The members of the church are “the holy believers and lambs who hear the voice of their Shepherd.”
[96] Succession is unnecessary because the true church is where the Word is preached and the sacraments administered. In fact, he says that if succession is so important, then we should acknowledge the right of the Sadducees as being the church since they are the true descendents of Aaron.
[97]This church will have a mixture of good people and evil people. Nonetheless, sacraments remain valid even when administered by evil persons.
[98] As he says in
Table Talk, the church is both inerrant (in what it teaches) and errant (in what it does).
[99]John Calvin
John Calvin set out his views on the church in his
Institutes of the Christian Religion Book IV. The most significant portion of this for our purposes is chapters 1 – 2 of that section, on “the marks of the church.”
[100] Calvin’s primary paradigm for the church is that of a parent that takes us through an educative process to maturity.
[101] The church is necessary because God does not immediately perfect and mature us.
[102] “In accommodation to our infirmity, [God] has added [eternal] helps… depositing this
[103] treasure with the church.”
[104] Therefore, the church is primarily the place where true doctrine is taught.
[105] This means that God has appointed pastors and teachers to carry out the right teaching and provide for the order of the church.
[106] Moreover, Calvin says, he has included sacraments in the church, which, by the church’s experience help faith to grow.
[107] Given the educative purpose of the church, when we reach heaven, and are freed “from the prison of the body,”
[108] Calvin seems to think that we will no longer need the church, and it will no longer exist.
[109] We cannot be saved outside of the church, and we must stay in it until we lose our mortal bodies and become like the angels.
[110] He does not understand why God did not just perfect us immediately, but since that is not the case, we have the church.
[111] With this paradigm in mind, Calvin has some basic ideas about what the church looks like. He begins by saying that the church is a mixture of the saved and unsaved.
[112] The true church is made up of the elect through all times and places. But since God’s election is secret, we cannot know which ones the elect are. Therefore we believe the church (believe that it exists and what it has to say) but we do not believe
in the church (putting our faith in it). Visible communion (as required by the Roman Catholic Church) is unnecessary and actually hurts our understanding that we are unified in Christ. Invisible communion keeps our hearts on the fact that it is Christ who unifies us, not people.
[113] In this, Calvin directly challenges Ignatius and the rest of the ancient church’s dependence on the unity with the bishop for true ecclesiality.
Since the church holds to an invisible unity, Calvin clarifies what the church is. It is, in one sense, the church as it is seen by God, those who are adopted as his sons and sanctified by the Holy Spirit. This exists not just in one place but throughout the world and through time. Secondly, it is the church “scattered throughout the world” who maintain one confession of faith, a certain “regularity of conduct,” participate in the sacraments and acknowledge the same God in worship.
[114] Moreover, “the church universal is the multitude collected out of all the nations, who, though dispersed and far distant from each other, agree in one truth of divine doctrine, and are bound together by a common religion.”
[115] He does not include the “apostolic succession” in this definition because, as he says elsewhere, it does not guarantee ecclesiality – otherwise the Eastern Orthodox would be a part of the one church.
[116] This definition, he says, permits each local body to be fully a church – as long as three requirements are fulfilled: the Word of God must be preached, the Word must be heard and the sacraments must be rightly administered.
[117] There is no need for a bishop, since “where two or three are gathered,”
[118] Christ is there.
The Reformation at Rome – The Council of Trent
The Council of Trent (1545 – 1564) is often forgotten in discussions of the theological development of the Reformation. Nevertheless, it is ecclesiologically significant – especially up through the time of the Second Vatican Council. It is the paradigm in which Catholics and Protestants operated for nearly four hundred years.
The Council of Trent speaks from a position of authority. Its self-perception is that it is the true Church, and it has the right to meet and to make decisions based on its authority as the Church. Most of its decrees begin as follows: “The holy, ecumenical and general Council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost…”
[119] The council presumes that those outside of the Roman Catholic Church are either heretics or infidels.
[120] They assume that those outside need to learn the true faith from them, and hopes that they will “acquiesce in the degrees and discipline of holy mother Church.”
[121] The motherhood of the church clearly puts the Council in an assumed power position over the Protestants in every session of the council. The Roman Catholic Church is the only one to which “the true sense and interpretation” of the Scriptures belongs.
[122] Furthermore, the authority of church discipline is maintained by “the vicar of God on Earth,” the Pope.
[123]The Council of Trent formally declared both the hierarchical framework and the rituals of the church to be essential to its nature, to the extent that they declared ordination to be a sacrament
[124] and confession to a priest to be necessary to salvation.
[125] In its declarations on the Eucharist and on Purgatory, the Council declared that these things were taught them by the Holy Spirit.
[126]In his 2002 book, An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical and Global Perspectives, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen lays out a diverse menu of current ecclesiologies – from those of the East and Rome to contemporary contextual ecclesiologies in Asia and South America. In the following paragraphs, I will attempt to lay out a brief summary of these ecclesiologies active in the contemporary scene, without merely reproducing Kärkkäinen in brief.
Kärkkäinen’s approach to ecclesiology is threefold. First, he examines seven “Ecclesiological Traditions:”
[127] Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Free Church, Pentecostal Charismatic and Ecumenical. He then examines seven “Leading Contemporary Ecclesiologists:”
[128] John Zizioulas, Hans Küng, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jürgen Moltmann, Miroslav Volf, James McClendon Jr. and Lesslie Newbigin. Finally, he explores seven “Contextual Ecclesiologies:”
[129] The Non-Church Movement in Asia, Base Ecclesial Communities in Latin America, The Feminist Church, African Independent Churches, The Shepherding Movement’s Renewal Ecclesiology, “A World Church” and the Post-Christian Church as “Another City.”
Kärkkäinen summarizes the Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology as “the church as an icon of the Trinity.”
[130] The Eastern view of the Trinity, of course, gives priority to the Father, thus creating an inherent hierarchy in the church. Nonetheless, all the members of the Orthodox Church are seen as one in the same way that the members of the Trinity are one.
[131] This unity is always visible, not hidden or invisible.
[132] Yet, there is no real complete ecclesiology, since ecclesiology, for the East, is a lived experience,
[133] mostly lived out through the eucharistic liturgy. This liturgy reflects a theological anthropology distinct from the West,
[134] which demonstrates the importance of not just telling of salvation in Christ but doing salvation in the Eucharist.
[135] The Spirit is fully active in the church just as Christ is, since Pentecost is the sequel to the Incarnation
[136] (and not a part of the “continuing incarnation”
[137]) and the Spirit is equated with grace.
[138] One of the leading Orthodox Ecclesiologists is John Zizioulas, the bishop of Pergamon. Both Miroslav Volf
[139] and Kärkkäinen select him to be the primary Orthodox voice for contemporary ecclesiology.
[140] Zizioulas’ primary ecclesiological work is
Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church.
[141] Fundamental to Zizioulas’ ecclesiology is the statement that “there is no true being without communion; nothing exists as an ‘individual’ in itself.”
[142] Communion is essential to Zizioulas’ ecclesiology:
From the fact that a human being is a member of the Church, he becomes an “image of God,” he exists as God himself exists, he takes on God’s “way of being.” This way of being… is a way of
relationship with the world, with other people and with God, an event of
communion, and that is why it cannot be realized as the achievement of an
individual, but only as an
ecclesial fact.
[143]Kärkkäinen summarizes: “The ecclesiological significance of the person comes to the fore in distinction from our merely biological existence in which we exist as disconnected individuals: in the church we are made persons, persons in communion.”
[144] For Zizioulas, this communion –
koinonia – comes about through the Eucharist. “The local eucharistic gathering is the church of God.”
[145]Nevertheless, Zizioulas states that the bishop is the sine qua non for valid Eucharist. This is because the bishop is the image of Christ – particularly, the image of Christ as the head of the church.
[146] This is because in his ordination the bishop has been connected “to the community
so profoundly and so essentially that in his new status after ordination one cannot conceive of him alone; he has become a
relational entity.”
[147] He “is able to transcend his individuality and represent the entire congregation.”
[148] He perceives Christ as a “corporate personality”
[149] who institutes the church. On the other hand, the Spirit “constitutes” the church.
[150] It speaks to the church’s existence.
[151] Therefore, according to Zizioulas, “each local church is a whole church, since it has the whole Christ. The church can be found in all its fullness wherever the Eucharist is being celebrated.”
[152] Due to the nature of the human being, and the nature of the Eucharist, each local church is fully the church.
The Roman Catholic Church has gone through a significant ecclesiological shift since the Council of Trent, first through Gallicanism
[153] and later through Vatican I where the structures of the church were designated as “given by the Spirit” and Papal Infallibility rendered any statement on faith and morality as sacrosanct.
[154] Later, Vatican II revised much of what had transpired since the Reformation.
Kärkkäinen argues that the organizing motif for contemporary Roman Catholic Ecclesiology is “the church as the ‘continued incarnation,’”
[155] as set forth by two Vatican II documents,
Lumen Gentium[156] and
Unitatis Redintegratio. Like Eastern Orthodoxy,
Lumen Gentium uses the Trinity as an analogy for the unity of the people of God – diverse, yet drawn together as one. This shows a retreat from previous hierarchical forms of the 19
th and early 20
th centuries, especially in the “spirit over the structures” language of Karl Rahner.
[157] It emphasizes communion as fundamental to the nature of the church – that while salvation is personal, it exists in community, as exemplified by the Trinity.
[158] This is expressed through the sacraments, where baptism is completed by the Eucharist.
[159] Most significantly,
Unitatis Redintegratio and
Ut Unum Sint opened ecumenical communication when it recognized that others held faith in Christ outside of the Roman Catholic Church.
[160]One of the “architects” of
Lumen Gentium was Hans Küng. Kärkkäinen uses him as an example of one of the significant Catholic voices, even though he has fallen into disfavor.
[161] He speaks as a voice of church renewal. Four main points summarize Küng’s paradigm for the church: 1) the church is the people of God; 2) the church is the Body of Christ; 3) the church is the creation of the Spirit; 4) the church is one.
Küng’s emphasis that the church is the people of God means that the church cannot be a “static and supra-historical phenomenon”
[162] but instead has a nature that “must be constantly realized anew and given new form in history by our personal decision of faith.”
[163] Furthermore, this “communion of saints” is made up of a community of sinners”
[164] who are called by God. This aspect of community means that there is no room for “voluntary associations” or of individualism.
[The] aim [of the Christian message] is not the salvation of the individual alone and the freeing of the individual from suffering, sin and death. The essential part of the Christian message is the idea of salvation for the whole community of people, of which the individual is a member.
[165]The People of God is “a pilgrim people;” moreover, all the members of the People of God are priests.
[166] As the Body of Christ, each local body is fully ecclesial, just as the whole church is ecclesial. “The church never exhausts or contains Christ anymore [sic] than the Spirit.”
[167] Yet, the church is also “the creation of the Spirit.”
[168] “The Spirit is the earthly presence of the glorified Lord in the Church.”
[169] This means that the structure of the church is “charismatic.” The charismata are for everyone. Yet, no one person holds them all. Therefore, the charismata build the unity of the church.
[170] Finally, the church is one. Küng allows for a diversity of structures in the church, since the church is most ecclesial locally, because of the unity of God. In all four of these ways Küng marks a change from the former Catholic ecclesiology.
In Kärkkäinen’s analysis, the Lutheran Church has not changed all that much from its ecclesiological roots in the Reformation. According to Kärkkäinen, the organizing motif is that the church is “both just and sinful”
[171] just like the Christian is in Lutheran theology.
[172] Little need be added to the ecclesiology discussed above in the section on Luther, except for one significant omission: the priesthood of all believers.
[173] Every believer may be a priest for any other, in fact, he or she may be as Christ to any other brother or sister,
[174] yet, for the sake of good order, those who preach are to be raised up through the community.
[175]Wolfhart Pannenberg, according to Kärkkäinen, is a Lutheran theologian in two ways: “he draws from the best of the Reformation sources” and “he is anxious to offer a corrective criticism toward his own tradition.”
[176] Therefore, he stands in his tradition as a Lutheran, while also sounding very un-Lutheran at the same time. Pannenberg sees the church as the “sign” of the Kingdom of God, but not equated with the Kingdom itself.
[177] Moreover, the church as sign points to “the unity of all people under one God.”
[178] This means that salvation is not merely individual: either the whole people of God is saved or none of it is.
[179] As the “sign of the Kingdom,” the church is “the anticipation of the kingdom.”
[180] Further, since this sign is for the unity of people, the church is a sign of justice in the world that will not be achieved on a large scale, but is no less important.
[181] Finally, Pannenberg argues for conscientiousness to the Spirit’s activity in the church. This, he says, will keep the balance between individual and corporate expressions of the church.
[182]Karl Barth is Kärkkäinen’s example of the changes the reformed tradition has gone through since Calvin. As he says, Barth is “representative of those original thinkers who stand firmly in their own tradition, yet both transcend and expand it.”
[183] Barth continues the reformed tradition’s emphasis on “the church as covenant,”
[184] while moving to a congregational structure, away from Presbyterianism
[185] and separating church and state.
[186] He urges that the priesthood of all believers mandates that all believers “are called to participate in God’s mission.”
[187] The church is called to witness, not just to “be.”
[188]A second example of a contemporary Reformed voice is Jürgen Moltmann. Like Pannenberg, Moltmann is just as often critical of his tradition as he is a part of it. His ecclesiology has four significant aspects: 1) Christological foundation; 2) the fellowship of equal persons; 3) the church for others; 4) the power of the Spirit.
The ecclesiology of the Free Churches can be summarized simply as the Believers’ Church. The church is made up only of those who have voluntarily become members of the church.
[189] These believers have unmediated access to God – without the necessity of church hierarchy or other structures.
[190] This means that within communities, people tend to be close-knit (since association is voluntary), but that sharp disagreements may exist between communities.
Since the Free Churches are to be made up of believers, discipline is essential.
[191] This discipline calls for “separation from the world”
[192] while at the same time bringing the whole of life into “the spiritual life” – nothing is secular.
[193] They furthermore focus on missions and evangelism to the extent that missional evangelization is the sole purpose of the church.
[194]Another group that has strong connection and similarity to the Free Church is the Pentecostal movement, with the accompanying Charismatic movement. These churches see the church basically as a charismatic fellowship.
[195] The presence of the Spirit defines the church,
[196] which must be experienced, typically in worship, which is equated with the presence of God.
[197]Kärkkäinen summarizes the ecclesiology of Miroslav Volf as “participatory.”
[198] Volf seeks to root his ecclesiology both in the “voluntarism and egalitarianism” of the Free Church
[199] and in the Triune nature of God.
[200] Fundamentally, Volf’s definition of the church rests in Matthew 18:20: “
Where two or three are gathered in Christ’s name,
