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, not only is Christ present among them, but a Christian church is there as well, perhaps a bad church, a church that may well transgress against love and truth, but a church nonetheless.”
[201] “The church continues to be the church even when it is not assembled; it lives on as a church in the mutual service its members render to one another and in its common mission to the world.”
[202] This makes each local church fully the church.
[203] Nonetheless, it is essential that this congregation gather in Christ’s name, unified by a confession of faith.
[204] Contrasting with the Orthodox and Catholic traditions, “ordained ministry belongs not to the
esse (essence) but to the
bene esse (well-being) of the church.”
[205] Volf revises current free church practice by stating that each local congregation must be open to the discipline of other congregations.
[206] The structures of these churches are “charismatic,” dynamic gifts of the Spirit in the local congregations. Furthermore, all members of the church may have these “charismata.”
[207]James William McClendon, Jr. believes that ecclesiology (as a part of theology) is the responsible practice of the church.
[208] For McClendon, the church is the congregation of “the local assembly of disciples.”
[209] This local assembly is necessary as the basis for the church because the gathering of disciples is to live out “the new way of Christian discipleship.”
[210] The church universal is made up of these local congregations, as “a people of peoples.”
[211] McClendon makes three statements regarding what makes the church “church:” 1) the “church members are subject to [the] rule [of God],” 2) “the church leaders [are] led by Christ” and 3) the church practices a “common life that [suits] the age to come.”
[212] Therefore, McClendon defines the church by much less measurable means than Luther, Calvin, or the Magisterial traditions.
Lesslie Newbigin defines the church primarily as “missionary.”
[213] Therefore, the church is to be “a pilgrim people,” that is “missionary, ecumenical and dynamic.”
[214] As a missionary church, it looks to the eschaton, and it must be ecumenical because it must be visible.
[215] Since for Newbigin the church is also the “community of the Holy Spirit,”
[216] it must draw together all three traditional streams of the church – Catholic, Protestant and Pentecostal.
[217] Moreover, the church has a responsibility to analyze the culture in which it lives and to help to bring that culture to repentance.
[218] Many evangelical scholars are listening closely to Newbigin, especially as relates to his missionary vision for Western culture.
[219] His voice is becoming the dominant one in the “emerging church.”
The final “traditional” ecclesiology Kärkkäinen covers is that of the Ecumenical Movement, which finds its clearest expression in the World Council of Churches. This movement sees the church through the lens of its unity or disunity.
[220] All participants are committed to the unity of the church, but there is considerable dissention as to what that unity actually looks like or how it will come about.
[221] Clearly, the conflicting ecclesiologies of the Roman Catholics and the Free Churches alone cause some level of discomfort with any declarations toward unity. Protestant theologians reject the “return to the fold” mentality of much of historic Roman Catholic ecumenism. Kärkkäinen argues that the one unifying theme of Ecumenical ecclesiology is
koinonia, “a sharing in one reality held in common.”
[222] It allows for “degrees” of unity, not just “all-or-nothing.”
[223] Unfortunately, the Free Churches still suspect the work of the WCC and the Ecumenical movement.
[224] The form and potency of this ecclesiology is yet to be seen. Yet, it seems to be a part of some of the contextual ecclesiologies – especially that of Campus Ministry.
Other Contextual Ecclesiologies
At the end of his book, Kärkkäinen discusses seven “contextual ecclesiologies.”
[225] Each of them provides an alternative to the “traditional” way of doing church in a specific context. While it would benefit us to discuss those here, space limitations will not permit us to do so. It will suffice to say the following: each of these seven contextual ecclesiologies reflects an expression of how the church is to be the church in a given cultural context. They ask questions and create answers to issues dealt with in a given context that is unique to their experience. They both reflect their culture and are prophetic to existing structures of power and corruption. Finally, they demonstrate to us what the church has done for centuries – lived as the church in specific local contexts, which sometimes vary significantly from place to place. Therefore, they serve as an excellent model for contextual ecclesiology in campus ministry.
Dialogue: An Interaction of Voices
Throughout the course of this paper, we have seen a large variety of ways of perceiving the church. We have listened to these voices as a way of understanding how we can and should be the church in our own day. In order to organize the “discussion” of these ecclesiological topics, we will group them in the following categories: 1) a philosophical distinction that creates problems for defining “church,” 2) liabilities brought along from our various traditions within Protestantism, 3) issues specific to the University of Illinois campus, 4) competition in ministry and 5) the extra-ecclesial locus of our faith and practice.
In order to understand the discussion to follow, it is important to delineate a philosophical distinction that has long been a part of Western thought, here applied to the church. Western thought has long created a distinction between “essence” and “actions.” This distinction is used to define and categorize much of our world. Sometimes essence is given the philosophical priority, other times actions are.
For the church this is significant when it comes to ecclesiology. Do we define the church as essentially “something” that then does (or should do) a certain constellation of actions? Alternatively, do we define the church by the something that does a certain constellation of actions, thus validating its essence?
This distinction becomes apparent, for example, in the difference between the Calvinist and the Free Church ecclesiologies. Calvin says that the church only exists where the Word is preached and the Sacraments rightly administered. Thus, for Calvin, actions (philosophically) precede essence. Thus, if a certain element is missing, the organization cannot be a church.
On the other hand, the Free Church ecclesiology begins with “the community of believers,” and since that is the case, the church is to do a certain constellation of activities – mission, worship, etc. For the Free Church, essence philosophically precedes actions. Thus, a church that is missing some element among the actions is not “non-church,” as in the preceding paragraph, but merely a church that is not living up to its name as church.
Needless to say, no tradition fully falls into one camp or the other all the time. Yet, when defining the church most of the traditions have a default position in one philosophy or the other. This largely depends on which set of questions were being asked when a particular tradition defined the church.
Nevertheless, it is important to define the church primarily from its essence first, then by its actions. Otherwise, the church would have the potential to come and go throughout time – spending long periods in “non-existence” – which has no New Testament support whatsoever. I realize by that statement that I have presupposed some things about the nature of the church before defining it – but at this point there is no other option.
Many of the ecclesiological problems evangelicals are noticing in our present day find their source in our use and our interpretation of our Protestant traditions. Sometimes our problems are caused by a misinterpretation of our own tradition; other times the accurate interpretation of our tradition, carried out in our current context, causes major problems.
Non-Ecclesiality of Para-Church
Our fundamental model for ministry in a campus setting, containing “churches” and “para-churches” is essentially built on our interpretation of Luther’s and Calvin’s understanding of the church. This understanding requires that, in order to be a “real church” a group has to do the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments, namely baptism and communion. Clearly, this paradigm states that certain organizations (including the Roman Catholic Church) are clearly churches because they do those things. Other Christian organizations, not serving the sacraments, are not churches according to this model. This falls neatly into one side of our philosophical distinction above. For the church-para-church paradigm, the church is defined by a constellation of actions (namely the preaching of the Word and the Sacraments) and those who are missing one of those things are “not the church.”
Furthermore, other matters of importance have been added to that basic constellation in order for an organization to be a “real church:” namely, the (sole) authority of Scripture and a “traditional interpretation” of what is basic to the Christian faith. Those who violate those two extra parts might still be called church (for tradition’s sake) but would not be considered the “true church” by most evangelical campus ministers.
Thus, our tradition prevents us from seeing the “para-Church” organizations in any other role except an adjunctive one. Yet, it seems that they would fit the definition of the church espoused by Volf and perhaps McClendon: they are inherently a gathering of believers, gathered in Jesus’ name, as a witness to the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. Therefore, even though they do not “administer the sacraments” they are, in fact churches (according to the other side of our “Philosophical Distinction” above), who are crippling themselves by attempting to be adjunctive and not live out the fullness of the body of Christ in the sacraments.
The Demographic Argument
There is one more argument put forth by both of the “para-Church” organizations against their ecclesiality – that of demographics. Since the para-Church is only ministering to a certain demographic, it cannot be a church since it is not open to people of all walks of life, ages, etc. Yet, this argument is only valid to a point. If we give priority to the gathering of believers together for ecclesiality, then they would still be a church. Granted, they do not have “every tongue, tribe and nation” participating in their groups. Heterogeneity is essential to the church as a whole. However, there are many ways to define homogeneity. Depending on how one draws the lines, any one group can be defined as either homogeneous or heterogeneous. It is all a matter of perspective. Just because all the units within the group are “students” does not make them homogeneous. On the other hand, it would be a better church if it could involve a greater segment of a local population.
Essential Value of Ecclesiality
Another area where our tradition becomes a liability is in the value we place on the church. For most evangelicals, the church is a place where we go to maintain our Christian life – a recharge, a meal. The church is merely the locus for personal, individual growth toward Christlikeness, or at worst, a holding pen for those waiting to die and go to heaven. Church is the place where people go so that they do not “fall away,” or “become heretical” or “fall into sin.”
This comes out of our Calvinist tradition in evangelical Protestantism. Calvin saw the church primarily as educative and something we must have because God does not perfect us immediately. When that is coupled with our individualized sense of salvation, church becomes something we must do rather than the joyful celebration of the body of Christ. Since the church is mostly there for “accountability,” we somehow hope that we will one day become strong enough where we will not need it – even if that prospect is minimally attainable.
Furthermore, we see the church as a liability. We often want to distance ourselves from the name “church” because the “church” is associated with so much that is negative in the minds of so many people. In doing this, we have not accepted the fact that we are in a body of people who are not always faithful to God. We somehow believe that we are different.
The Pure Church
Our forbearers in the Radical Reformation believed that they could associate with one another and form a “pure church” in opposition to the impure church all around them. Each one of our Protestant denominations and each of our non-denominational churches basically believes that they are being the pure church in some way that is better than the rest of the churches who are trying to be “the pure church.” This leads to an intense amount of competition, which will be discussed below. We always have a sense that others are not doing something right, and that we are doing something better. This is basic to our Protestant way of thinking, but it causes us considerable problems when we try to work together.
In times of crisis, we long for a person to rise up to be the voice for evangelicals. Yet, we will never have such a voice. None of us wants someone from another organization to speak for us – because we do not agree with everything they say. As long as we are trying to be the pure church, we will never have one unified voice.
Moreover, our desire to be the pure church was the organizational impetus behind many of the current ministries at work on campus. InterVarsity, in particular, began in response to “liberalizing tendencies” in the YMCA. Often, much of our energy in ministry is spent defining who is in and who is outside the pale of true orthodoxy.
No Visible Unity
Following from our Protestant roots as well, we discover that we do not believe visible unity to be possible or even desirable. We therefore pay little attention to the possibility of working together in any serious way that would unify us in a way that would make us beholden to one another. As long as our unity still allows our complete independence from each other, we are willing to commit to it.
However, the scriptures show us over and over again that to be truly unified means to engage in mutual submission one to the other. Any unity we have that does not involve mutual sacrifice and mutual submission is a sham. It minimizes what unity is all about.
View of History
Yet another issue stemming from our Protestant understanding of the church, especially in the Free Church tradition, is our view of history. We do not view history very highly. In our attempts to “be the early church,” we perpetually skip over most of the history of the church. We find a close examination of history to be unfruitful, since for most of the church’s history the church has been impure. Moreover, we perceive that for most of the history of the church, the Bible has been misinterpreted. We have become ignorant of our own traditions in the process, to the point that we deny that we are a part of a tradition. We assume that the Bible as we interpret it is the only way it can be interpreted, at least on major theological issues. We fear tradition in any form.
In doing so, we have lost contact with the part of New Testament ecclesiology when Paul says, “imitate me as I imitate Christ.”
[226] We do not allow ourselves to use the full tradition of the church as our example in imitation of Christ, inasmuch as each person was, in fact, following Christ. To replace this loss, we develop resources out of one person’s experience in their lifetime to show us how to live. We have extracted ourselves from real continuity with the Apostles by removing ourselves from history.
This dialogue must address some specific issues at play at the University of Illinois. The analysis of the different churches and organizations given by the InterVarsity staff member largely seems to be accurate. There are para-Church groups, there are denominational foundations, there are “recent student churches,” and there are community churches doing campus ministry. One denominational foundation, the Baptist Student Foundation, while it fits historically with the other denominational foundations, in reality looks more like one of the “recent student churches.”
This study revealed that Twin City Bible Church and Stratford Park Bible Chapel are the only two churches in town that have fully bought into the church-para-church paradigm. Thus, the para-church organizations are really an extension of these two local congregations more than a truly ecumenical movement. Since most churches desire members who are involved in significant ways beyond Sunday morning attendance, usually in Bible Studies and service projects, churches that have not completely bought into the para-Church modus operandi end up becoming marginalized by the para-Church organization as “unsupportive.”
Since the para-Church organizations have a lot of clout with youth leaders and “home church pastors,” the pastors often recommend one or more of the para-Church groups to students as their primary contact with evangelical ministry at the University of Illinois. In doing so, they end up sending almost all of their students to one of two churches in Champaign-Urbana. That in itself is not a problem, but it does minimize being a part of a church, since the para-Church is the first point of contact with believers on campus.
Furthermore, inasmuch as many local churches are now trying to do campus ministry, and doing so, seemingly, effectively, the adjunctive status of the para-Church organizations actually works against churches being effective in doing ministry as local churches. Time, energy and financial resources are all diverted from local congregations to para-Church organizations that do not, in the end, support the ministry that the local congregation is trying to do. These are issues that the various campus organizations should examine amongst themselves. These things bubble under the surface and cause much passive-aggressive behavior between organizations.
In the American Evangelical church, our similarity of doctrine and practice leads to a high level of mistrust and competition. When new organizations or churches come on the scene, each existing church begins to feel threatened. (Incidentally, they feel threatened even by those who have been on the scene for a long time, as well.) The new church wants to “do things differently” than the other existing congregations, typically because of some discerned need or some theological issue. Each existing church fears the advent of new churches, since it perceives an inherent instability in their own body of believers. They fear that people (in their own congregation, as well as new people coming to the community) will go elsewhere. They fear that this other church will snap up all the reachable unreached people so that there are none left to go around.
Where does this extreme level of corporate anxiety come from? What is the source of this fear of other Christians? Where does the mistrust originate? It originates in our Protestant outlook. We split apart from other groups because we saw them doing something wrong. We saw that the church had drifted from God’s will. Like the Donatists, we found certain practices intolerable, and began a parallel structure to challenge the status quo. Our existence, then, is predicated on the argument that everyone else is doing something wrong and is not upholding the Faith of Jesus Christ.
Yet, each one of these churches reaches out to a very similar group of people (if not the same group of people). Their ministries look very similar. Their stances on various controversial public issues are often the same across the board. But this unity is unstructured and accidental, and retains a high level of mistrust.
Ultimately, this mistrust, anxiety and competition come from the fact that we are not actually working toward the same goals. While we feel some level of comfortability recommending other ministries because we know they are “orthodox,” we still are uncomfortable doing so because we do not share common vision and goals with the other congregations and organizations. A student that does not remain in our ministry, and goes to another, becomes a threat to us – just like the warrior caught in battle and released to go back to his lines, who will fight us another day. That student could potentially drag away others from our ministry to be a part of this other ministry that truly cares very little for us, except for a certain level of politeness. Few ministries would be too heartbroken if another ministry left town for one reason or another. Our ministry self images are so low that we constantly fear one of the arguably similar organizations will do what we are doing, only better, and we will be destroyed by their success.
In doing this, we do not recognize the call of God in our ministry. If God has called us together, he will support us until it is time for us to be called apart. In our fearfulness, we have calculated God out of the equation. Our insecurity belies our faith.
This stands in sharp contrast to the life and practice of the Ancient Church. At that time, it was the very similarity of doctrine and practice that held the church together, instead of creating a competitive environment. The common table was the symbol of that unity. Later on, the common creed was added to define who was eligible to be at the common table. No evangelical would ultimately deny the content of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed – although various polities would have difficulty in mandating its use as a test for orthodoxy for a number of reasons.
Ultimately, however, it is the content of that very creed which evangelicals are trying to uphold. Evangelicals demand that God created the world. They demand that this world consists of not only that which we can see, but that which we cannot. Evangelicals demand that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God – no others can claim deity by virtue of sonship to God by nature, only by grace. Evangelicals demand that Jesus Christ is equal in godliness to the Father, that he is not greater (as the Gnostics held), nor that he is lesser – some “good teacher” or the like. Most Evangelicals would affirm the participation of Jesus Christ in the creation of the world, although that is not emphasized enough to be on the tip of the tongue.
Evangelicals consider Christ’s incarnation as essential for the salvation of human beings – for which reason he became incarnate, from the Virgin Mary. Evangelicals tend to hold anyone who denies the Virgin Birth at arm’s length. Furthermore, Evangelicals demand that the actual death of Christ for our sins on the cross and his bodily resurrection on the third day (according to the scriptures) is the sine qua non of Christianity. Moreover, while Evangelicals do not emphasize Christ’s ascension, it is certainly assumed as part and parcel of the strong belief in Christ’s second coming where he will judge the world.
Evangelicals equally demand the statements regarding the Holy Spirit. They demand that the Holy Spirit is, in fact, God – not some “life force” or “spirituality.” They believe that the Holy Spirit fully inspired the prophets – and therefore the scriptures. They demand that despite the disunity displayed by the church, there is one church and one church alone. Furthermore, this church contains all that is necessary for salvation – the good news of Jesus Christ – and they demand the “traditional interpretation” of the scriptures according to the perceived “apostolic tradition.” Finally, they have retained the importance of baptism (in whatever form) and look for the resurrection and eternal life with God in heaven.
Such affirmations once were considered the most basic confession of the church and the symbol of its unity. Now, while we all can affirm at least the vast majority of these statements, we do not find ourselves propelled to the sort of unity that the ancient Church believed to be the sine qua non of the church. We keep all our inter-ecclesial ties informal, non-binding and voluntary. Although the unity already exists, we choose to deny it through our actions and through the way we structure ourselves.
The ancient Church considered unity to be the reason that the various members could sit down at a council and work through differences. Unity was assumed, which allowed for some level of diversity and disagreement without damaging the whole. In the current evangelical practice, however, unity is only permitted as the result of discussions working out a myriad of doctrinal and practical matters. Some church leaders today all but discourage relationships between people of various congregations out of fear that the person will find something they like better in the other congregation and leave without even saying goodbye. Thus, many churches have turned to “niche marketing” – appealing to a certain homogeneous group – to assure “brand loyalty.” Does this not counteract the concept of catholicity?
Evangelicals are united insofar as they believe that cultural forces are dismantling the Nicene faith – both inside the church and out. They stand for orthodoxy against a long list of “-isms” that seek to challenge the tradition of the church. If Evangelicals are to have a voice, they must realize that their unity is substantive, that it actually exists. From that point, many of the thornier issues can be dealt with – behind the solid front of the unity of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
One of the fundamental issues that becomes clear through even a cursory reading of the church-historical sources is the ecclesial locus for the entirety of the church’s life. The church was the center of the life of the body. Now, despite our best efforts, we primarily perceive the church to be a building. But even while we are trying to be “the church without walls,”
[227] we must retain the ecclesial locus of the Christian life.
First, our conversion process is extra-ecclesial. Even such recent books as Bill Hybels and Mark Mittelberg’s
Becoming a Contagious Christian[228]assume that conversion of non-believers to Christianity is done by individual believers outside of an ecclesial context, and that one can be converted without necessarily joining the church. This book assumes that most contact between believers and non-believers will be individual, and separated from the life of the church community. It further assumes that there will be no overlap between a person’s “churched” relationships and their “unchurched” relationships.
This kind of extra-ecclesial conversion process is the main paradigm for Campus Crusade’s “ministry mode” of evangelism. People are converted apart from any contact with the church, “saved,” and then brought into a relationship with a congregation.
Since conversion, in the evangelical practice, is not inherently connected with a local gathering of believers, our ecclesiology is weakened. The church is an “extra” that those who really want to live out the life of a convert engage in to grow in their faith.
Second, our evangelical piety is extra-ecclesial. The basis for all evangelical piety is personal Bible study and personal prayer. While few of us would say that those things are “good enough” by themselves, they are the primary means for getting people to engage in faithfulness outside of the group convocation, whether a “church” or a “para-Church.” As we saw with conversion, this makes the church a means to our own personal, individual salvation. This means that for evangelicals, the church is no longer truly a gathering of Christ’s body – it is closer to the gathering of marbles in a jar. Each is present independent of the rest, for the purposes of each one’s individual salvation.
Third, our obedience is extra-ecclesial. Christians find themselves in extra-ecclesial “accountability groups” in order to live out the moral obligations of the Christian faith. Furthermore, these “accountability groups” often substitute “morality” for Christian obedience. Morality encourages people to live a “moral life,” not harming others, exercising freedom only to the extent that it does not infringe upon another’s freedom. Unfortunately, that is a better application of John Stuart Mill than the New Testament.
Christian obedience can only be lived out in the community of believers locally. It is only possible where there is a true authority structure, connected to those who are more mature in the faith. Inasmuch as we refuse to accept authority in our organizations, we are self-defeating when it comes to accountability. Moreover, we discover that in the “accountability groups” the people we are accountable to and the people with whom we associate in worship and in Bible study are often not the same people. If we are thus disconnected from those around us, how can we truly be a community?
The ancient Church challenges the church of today in the area of lifestyle. The ancient church had discipline built into its structure. Our current Protestant system cannot handle such discipline. If we were ever to intensify our level of discipline, we would likely see a mass exodus from our congregations to other congregations. Since we live in a plural system, people always have another option if our option ceases to be palatable.
Moreover, the ancient Church’s structures built community in such a way that people knew each other. This enabled a certain level of enforcement of discipline that would be unthinkable in most of our non-rural churches today. Our seeker-friendly system encourages churches to be very friendly, but not identify people. They are allowed to blend in and be a part of the Christian community in the worship of the One True God without believing a word of it. Furthermore, given that our churches are not set up for people to know each other and to interact, people’s lifestyles as a part of the body of Christ are minimized. We keep the lives of our members secret from one another. Contrast Tertullian with this, when he describes how closely knit the Christians are: “All things are common among us but our wives.”
[229] Our intentional lack of community leads to a lack of discipleship and empowerment for people to actually live the Christian life.
In these five ways we can see that the historical traditions of the church challenge current evangelicalism to be the church differently than we are. It challenges our extra-ecclesial locus for evangelism, conversion, discipleship and our lack of obedience and mutual submission. Therefore, we now turn to some proposals for ecclesiology in the 21st century, based upon the church-historical critique.
Ecclesiology in the 21st Century
Building an Ecclesiology
In order to build a firm ecclesiology, we must begin with several other significant aspects of the theological discipline: the doctrines of the Trinity, Christology and Pneumatology. We will discover that our understanding of the church is, and always has been derivative from these doctrines. We will use these basic doctrines to build a framework within which we can live out an ecclesiology in the 21st century.
It is very probable that these are not the only conclusions that we may draw from these doctrines. It is also very probable that these are not even the best conclusions we may draw from these doctrines. However, they serve as an example of how to build an ecclesiology from what we believe about God and the person and work of Christ.
The Trinity as the Model for the Ecclesiality of the Local Body
The question of the ecclesiality of the local body of believers relative to the whole body of Christ has always been a difficult issue to resolve. Nonetheless, it seems that the solution to the ecclesiality of the local body runs right through the Christian understanding of the Trinity. In Trinitarian theology, each one of the three persons of God is fully God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Each deserves the same honor; each is worthy of worship as God. Each is fully complete as God. However, it is inappropriate to view a single member of the Trinity as God all by himself. We must always regard each member of the Trinity in relationship to the others. This is why we call one Father, one Son, and one Holy Spirit. This is also why we use the terminology “begotten” and “begetting,” and “proceeding” and “proceeded.” God is inherently one; God is inherently in relationship to himself in the person of the Trinity.
This intimate fellowship between the persons of the Trinity is analogous to what we must say about the differentiation of church and churches. There is one church. This church incorporates all who are believers in Christ Jesus. Yet, this church is expressed through the multiplicity of local congregations. Each one of these local congregations is completely and fully the church – having the same capacity to be the fellowship of the believers. Therefore, each has full ecclesiality. However, it is inappropriate to view a single local congregation as the church all by itself. We must always regard each (local) church in relationship to the others. Whereas our language for the Trinity is replete with terms of relationship, our language for the relationships between churches has a small vocabulary indeed.
Nevertheless, we must attempt to formulate a Trinitarian ecclesiology. Any local congregation that does not have a greater affiliation with the Body of Christ is living contrary to its nature – it is trying to divide the indivisible, it is living in broken relationship with itself, and it is standing in judgment over all who are faithfully trying to be disciples of Jesus Christ. These types of churches are truly rare – but they do exist.
More importantly, in order to live out its full nature as a church, each local body must be in intimate perichoretic fellowship with at least two other local bodies, preferably within the same local area, as will be discussed below. This assures a greater recognition of the true “catholicity” of the church, even though it is expressed predominately through local practice.
Christology and the Cultural Location of Ecclesiology
Throughout this paper, we have seen that all ecclesiologies are, to one extent or another, culturally located, asking and answering questions posed in a particular context. We, too, find ourselves in need of an ecclesiology for the early 21st century. Needless to say, this ecclesiological discussion needs boundaries so that we do not lose the sine qua non of Christianity. As a model for that ecclesiology, we have Chalcedonian Christology.
It is essential that we recognize that the church, like the person of Jesus Christ, is one “thing” – being, organism – with two natures, divine and human. The divine is immutable; the human is mutable. The divine is invisible except as it is seen in the human flesh. The Word of God
[230] is always speaking and going forth from the Father, but that Word is constantly speaking through human language. The moment the Word becomes flesh, it participates in a culture. Therefore, the Word speaks through human thought-forms – constantly localized, constantly changing. Therefore, ecclesiology is an ever-changing, ever-developing reflective theological process whereby we learn to express God’s Word in our words, for our time and place.
This, of course, does not mean that all is “up for grabs.” It is always the Word of God that we are “giving flesh to.” There are certain things that we are given to unite with that flesh. Thus, after all that has been said, it is still possible to say that there are certain ecclesiological “essentials” that are the sine qua non and the paradigm of the church, while other things are fully adiaphora.
Nevertheless, this Christological dimension to ecclesiology leads us to discuss two other major issues: how the church is to perceive truth (its nature and its use) and how the church is to deal with the traditions that surround our interpretation of scripture.
The Truth as a Person and the Church’s Self-Perception
Central to an understanding of the Church is an understanding of the nature of truth. Truth and its nature was one of the clear emphases of the ancient church, as we have seen. It must be a part of current ecclesiology as well. However, it must have a different emphasis than the most recent understanding in the church. The primary understanding of truth must be that truth is a person, rather than merely “absolute.” Absolute, for many people, means that it is abstract – somehow disconnected from “cultural pollution.” Looking to the dictionary, absolute means, on the one hand, “Perfect in quality or nature; complete. Not mixed; pure; unadulterated. Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional. Unqualified in extent or degree; total. Not limited by constitutional provisions or other restraints… Not to be doubted or questioned; positive; certain.”
[231] Christian truth claims to be “catholic,” in the sense that it contains all that is necessary for salvation. In this sense, Christian truth is absolute.
On the other hand, Christian truth is fundamentally not “absolute” in the sense that absolute is “unrelated to and independent of everything else.”
[232] Christians affirm that truth is a person – the person Jesus Christ,
[233] fully God and fully human. The incarnation of Jesus Christ demonstrates that this personal truth, while at once independent of the created order, has come and dwelt within the created order. If Christian truth were fully and completely absolute, it would be utterly impersonal. It would be an object that could be analyzed and measured. It would fall under our scientific criteria – measurable, knowable, repeatable. It would be distinct from God – such that God would have to fall under its rule. Such an object could, in a sense, be possessed. If not possessed, it would still be a structure, woven into the fabric of creation – and perhaps the one who is not created.
Yet, all these things would violate God’s demonstration of truth in Jesus Christ. Truth is a person, therefore it is not able to be possessed or owned, or, ultimately, controlled. It has a level of mystery to it. It is not a part of the creation, nor is it separable from God. Truth as Jesus Christ means that truth came to live among us.
Therefore, the church is not the “bastion of truth.” It does not defend truth from harm. Truth is indelible – the cross, in attempting to destroy truth, and causing him physical harm, was unsuccessful in destroying it. God raised him from the dead. If truth is Jesus Christ, the church does not possess the truth – truth possesses (dwells within) the church. The church is neither the source of truth nor the container for truth. Instead, the church, in the words of John, “witnesses to the truth.”
[234] The church does not have to “defend the truth.” It has already been proclaimed victorious in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, to which we are witnesses.
[235] The truth is a way of life, not a list of propositions. Therefore, truth is lived out in the course of discipleship, in which we learn to obey all that Christ has commanded us, and put on his life.
[236] This lifestyle (which does assume verbal communication with others, not
merely actions) witnesses to the truth because it witnesses to the Eternal Life in Jesus Christ.
This makes what we believe and the lifestyle that belief inspires in us central to the life of the church. Declaring truth personal, rather than absolute, connects it to Jesus Christ more tightly and more fully. It is a higher sense of truth than merely absolute truth because it fully connects truth with divinity – the divinity of Jesus Christ. This connection with divinity is not that truth is part of God’s creation, or one of his “attributes” but part of his nature. It declares that knowing the truth means knowing the person of Jesus Christ, not just “the principles of the world.”
[237] There are vast implications for the church’s approach to the rest of the world because of this.
1. The church is the only reliable witness to the truth, because the disciples of Jesus Christ are the only ones who have come to know the truth as he is.
2. Truth in our world has been marred, but not destroyed utterly.
3. It is not our responsibility to defend the truth – the truth has been vindicated already in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
4. Only by living the truth do we participate in the divine nature, not by merely thinking “right thoughts.”
5. Eternal life is not primarily about belief, but about life. Belief is necessary for that life to exist, but it is not the sum total of that life.
Scripture and Tradition
Evangelicals have long held to the Reformation doctrine of “Sola Scriptura.” This idea has undergone some significant revisions in the last century and a half so that the Evangelical position might be clarified. Sola Scriptura has moved to “Bible as sole authority for faith and practice.” Beyond that, many groups feel the need to clarify either the infallibility of Scripture or its inerrancy. Others believe that the Bible should be taken literally in every verse, except in cases of cutting out eyes and hands and feet.
[238] Nevertheless, Evangelicals have run into difficulty in the use of Scripture in several contemporary debates – especially in the recent discussion regarding homosexuality. In this debate, many Christians are debating other Christians over the use of differing hermeneutics. Ultimately, many of these arguments come down to both groups saying, “the Bible clearly states that…”
Obviously, this creates an impasse. Both groups claim to be using the Scripture faithfully. Both groups choose to use the Bible as the sole authority for faith and practice. Yet, clearly, they have come up with two very distinct readings of that same Scripture.
In this case, most Evangelicals choose to say that the Tradition is authoritative – even though it goes against the most basic Evangelical principles. “Surely not,” the reader may protest. Yet, it is so. There is no other alternative: Evangelicals must say that the most faithful reading of Scripture is the way in which it has been read by nearly two thousand years of tradition. Otherwise, it is “Scripture alone” against “Scripture alone,” in which case neither side has greater legitimacy over the other.
Evangelicals, who in one sense oppose all traditions as “accretions” to the New Testament, now find themselves defending “the Apostolic Faith,” which is as it should be. “Sola Scriptura” was fine as long as only certain parts of the tradition were being questioned. Now that different questions are being asked,
[239] we must once again appeal to the tradition of the church. We must once again say, when asked, “this is the Apostolic Faith, which we received from those faithful ones who came before us, which is the faith of the Apostles.” In a day when the Bible can be construed to mean just about anything, and social norms permit each construal to be valid or valuable, we have no other choice.
Thus, as we formulate our ecclesiology, we must realize that the Bible is an ecclesial document. Its interpretation will vary throughout time as various cultures interact with it. Most of us no longer require women to have their heads covered in worship, for instance. Some of us even ordain women!
Nevertheless, we find that there are some things that have not changed, despite the changing culture. The Word of God remains, and will stand, while all else shifts around it. Yet, we will find it necessary to live it out in every culture for the Word to remain among us.
Charismatic Structures
The Trinity and Christology are not, of course, the only doctrines we must apply to ecclesiology. As John Zizioulas and Wolfhart Pannenberg have urged, we must pay attention to the theology of the Holy Spirit (Pneumatology) for ecclesiology to be complete. We will now turn to the Charismatic structures of the church.
“The Spirit blows where it wills.”
[240] As we have been urged by the InterVarsity staff member, our structures must be flexible. We cannot control the Spirit of God. We cannot contain the Spirit of God inside any particular structure. Yet, the Spirit indwells each believer and the entire Body of Christ. Our ecclesiology must take this into account. There is a diversity of gifts; there is a diversity of structures. Nevertheless there is one Spirit.
Moreover, we see that the Spirit bears fruit in our lives – made up of nine parts: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.”
[241] When we examine the nature of this fruit, we see that it is all expressed within our local, everyday relationships. It is not particularly evident to our Christian brothers and sisters on the far side of the globe. For this reason, it is necessary to perceive the unity of the church from a local perspective.
Local Ecumenism – Internetworking
Given the competitive paradigms described at length above, and given the vast spectrum of current voices in ecclesiology, it is necessary to examine how we can relate to one another as the Body of Christ. Most approaches to ecumenism have involved gathering the top leadership of various organizations (or their representatives) to take on doctrinal issues head-on. This has been, on the whole, unfruitful – not because major declarations have not been made and dialogue continues. It has been unfruitful because there are many churches that are not invited to the table for dialogue because they do not participate in one of these ecclesial super-structures. They are overlooked. Moreover, among many of these churches, associations between congregations are much more fluid and voluntary. Decisions are not made from the top down – cannot be made from the top down, in some cases.
Another approach has been to create new church associations out of existing bodies, hoping to bind all congregations back into a unity by creating a common fellowship of one or more existing denominations. Generally, what this has done is add yet another denomination and movement to the list of groups that must be invited to the table in the preceding paragraph, because not all constituencies within the movement end up becoming a part of the movement, and remain where they are, albeit in altered form.
An alternative is to create personal relationships between people of separate congregations who are both committed to remaining in their local church and committed to serving God alongside other local Christians outside their own church. These relationships form around common service to the poor in the community. They must not be “yet another ministry of” a certain local church but an intentional focus bought into by the whole body. The purpose of building relationships between local congregations is to begin to operate as persons would in a relationship – two whole groups operating as partners in ministry. This does not occur by building a structure to which all are invited, but by developing personal bonds between congregations. There is no structure external to either congregation, but a covenant that binds them together for ministry.
As these churches grow together in ministry, they will soon find other things in common. Their relationships will deepen through time beyond the initial partnering to do a specific, regular kind of ministry and begin to extend to other common experiences. Eventually, this bond will become so strong that a unified perspective on ministry will develop. Then, no matter which way the denominations go, the local congregations will find a new corporate sense of unity that transcends their denominations and theological assumptions. When relationships truly become personal (and not just business), then real or perceived conflicts may be resolved by people who truly care for each other and who love each other as themselves.
To reiterate: these relationships must always be personal. While seemingly palatable, no effort should be made to incorporate everyone all at once. No organization external to the local congregations should be devised. This relationship should be developed by those within the congregation who are in the appropriate positions of leadership, not by just anyone. The unity will take time and intention. It must never be businesslike – always intensely personal.
The Spirit at Work in the Church – Not Fearing Tradition
Finally, our understanding of the Holy Spirit leads us to believe that the Holy Spirit has been active in the church throughout its history, within the believers individually and in the church as a whole. Therefore, while we have begrudgingly accepted the fact above that we do, indeed, use the tradition of the church to interpret the scripture, and that we continue to re-interpret the scripture on a daily basis, perhaps we do not have to begrudge the tradition so much.
If we have a Christologically-modeled ecclesiology as we have described above, we can trust that the Spirit has been working in the church. While we cannot accept tradition unquestioningly, we must trust that the average believer throughout history was trying to be faithful and listen to the voice of the Spirit. We can still question the usefulness of a particular tradition for our day – whether through the difference in cultural location, or through an understanding that the former practice is inherently flawed and/or sinful.
However, we must never say that the Spirit was not working through the believers in history. That would deny that they were, in fact, believers. Moreover, we cannot know their hearts. Yet, from their writings we can see that despite their shortcomings, they were trying to be faithful to Christ – not to a tradition other than his death and resurrection. We believe that the Spirit is at work in the church.
Living an Ecclesiology
We now have a framework within our doctrine of God for how the church should be shaped. Yet, apart from several affirmations, we have very little in the way of an effective ecclesiology. From these affirmations, we can say that the church is, essentially, the community of those called out by God into Christ’s Body to be disciples, who are responding to that call by aspiring to Christlikeness in the Kingdom of God.
It is true that this is essentially a modified free-church ecclesiology. Nevertheless, it also contains significant critiques on the free church tradition – based on the framework above, and what will follow below. We will discuss the elements of this definition: the call of God, discipleship, Christ’s body and the Kingdom of God.
The Call of God
Any ecclesiology must take the call of God into account. Different groups have construed this in differing ways. The Free Church tradition, and the Baptists in particular, have seen the church essentially as the body of the “called-out ones” (a literal, albeit strained, translation of ekklesia). This definition directly challenges the Free-Church practice, however.
If people are, indeed, called by God, the faithful response to that call is to gather together in God’s name. This is by no means a “voluntary association.” If God has called us, we must live out that call in the way he has chosen for us to live it. This may not mean that our assembly is a “gathering of like-minded people.” It may mean that we are called together in spite of the fact that we cannot get along with those around us whatsoever.
[242] This does not eliminate our ability to choose with whom we associate. However, it does require that those with whom we associate are the ones God has called us to be with. By submitting to baptism and becoming a part of the body of Christ, we are not carefree individuals any longer. We have submitted to obedience to Christ – and have promised to put on his life in discipleship. Our life becomes intertwined with the lives of those around us in Christ. We have a responsibility to be conscientious of those who share our common life.
Furthermore, we learn to be obedient to those who are acknowledged to reflect Christlikeness more than we do. We are not all equally mature in Christ. We acknowledge that some are in a deeper relationship with God than we are, and we listen to them to discern how to deepen our relationship as well.
Therefore, when we accept God’s call, we join the group of people whom God has called – the Church. Insofar as we do not, we have misunderstood the meaning of salvation. Thus, as Christian leaders, faithfulness to Christ means that we must speak the language of call to those with whom we come in contact through our ministry. We must not invite a crowd because others are inviting a crowd, continuing to compete with one another. We must invite persons to discipleship to Christ Jesus, through the Body of Christ as expressed in local groups. We must give them resources to investigate where their call will lead.
This call of God calls us to be a part of his people. The call indicates our personal salvation, to be sure; it also indicates that we will be saved as a part of the whole people of God – not separate from all other people. God has called us out of all the nations of the earth to be his people, and it is his people whom he will save.
Discipleship
The call of God is a call to something, not merely a call about something. Following the example of Christ in the Gospels, in particular Matthew, we see that this is a call to discipleship. This discipleship is a long-term formational process whereby we become like Christ. It is initiated by God, and responded to by people. That response is necessarily done on a person-by-person basis. Each one must choose to accept Christ’s call of discipleship.
Since God calls us to be his disciples, the church is the group of those who are called to be his disciples. Therefore, the church will forever be both the assembly of saints and the assembly of sinners as we proceed toward maturity.
Yet, we must be careful to emphasize that while discipleship is begun as an individual responds to the call of God and makes a personal decision to be formed in Christlikeness, discipleship is not individualistic. Nor is discipleship done in community merely as a matter of convenience, as if it could be done just as well individually. As we are called by God to be his people, we are called by God into discipleship together. Our discipleship is one of a common, shared life with Jesus Christ – the koinonia. The corporate aspect of our discipleship is not for mutual individual edification, but to edify the whole Body of Christ.
Therefore, our piety must reflect this corporate dimension. We should find the locus of our discipleship within the common life of the body, not on our own, alone with our Bibles. However, we must retain personal individual interaction with God as well. We must seek balance.
The Church as Christ’s Organic Body
If the corporate nature of the church were not emphasized enough in the terminology of God’s call and of discipleship, it is brought to completion in that we are incorporated into Christ’s Body. This body metaphor has several significant aspects.
First, it tells us that the church is never merely an institution. There will always be institutional aspects to the church – those frameworks that hold it together. Nevertheless, the church will always be most naturally an organism – a living being. The organic nature of the church requires both stability and flexibility. Moreover, organisms need unity more necessarily than institutions.
Second, it reminds us of the physical aspects of the church. Protestants have long spiritualized the body metaphor until it has very little concrete essence. To balance this very justifiable spiritualization, the body metaphor recalls that those in whom the Spirit dwells are the vehicles for God’s presence in the world.
Third, it reminds us of our diversity – without which there can be no true unity. Diversity by itself cannot bring unity. Neither can uniformity express the true multifaceted nature of Christ’s body. However, if we are a part of Christ’s body, he unites us together in a natural unity beyond anything we are able to devise.
The Church and the Kingdom
The church is not the Kingdom of God. Instead, the church lives within the Kingdom of God while simultaneously acting as the sign and symbol of the Kingdom. Inasmuch as we have been formed in Christlikeness, we participate in the Kingdom of God. Yet, none of us would ever say that we have completely received the fullness of the Kingdom on this side of the Resurrection. Therefore, the church is also the sign that the Kingdom has come among us, and will come fully when Christ returns. Furthermore, it is the symbol of what life in the Kingdom of God will be like.
This gives us a great responsibility to live as witnesses to God’s activity among us and in the world. We must never become inwardly focused: we have a message to proclaim. Furthermore, our actions are symbolic beyond their practical significance. Anything we do as the church either represents or misrepresents God’s Kingdom.
It should be clear from the discussion of these aspects in the definition of the church that this definition speaks to the essence of the church, from which we derive ways of living it out. Ecclesiology is a lived discipline, reflective of who we believe God is. It must speak both to individuals and to being in community. This is why the definition of the church hinges on the gathering of believers. “Gathering” speaks to community; “believers” speaks to personal decision. Both are required for true faithfulness.
Epilogue
We have seen that the church-historical tradition has much to say regarding our current campus ministry ecclesiology and practice. Moreover, we have seen that our current campus ministry practice is a microcosm of all of the evangelical issues currently. We have proposed an ecclesiology for the 21st century that is based upon the gathered believers as disciples.
Ecclesiology is a long-neglected component to our faith, but one that has an incredible impact upon how we perceive the Christian life. It affects how we perceive others within the faith. Moreover, it is the source of much of our confusion and competition as evangelicals.
In order to implement any change, we must be willing to develop personal, abiding relationships with leaders from other organizations and churches. We must be willing to become mutually submissive as congregations. And we must choose to put making disciples of Jesus Christ as our top priority.
The Peace of the Lord be with you all.
Appendix I: The Request for Interview
Dear Colleagues,
A few weeks ago, at the ECU meeting, I asked to set up appointments with you for interviews regarding a research project I am conducting on Ecclesiology. After a few weeks of work, my research has finally progressed to the point where I am now ready to follow up and make those appointments.
I would be available for appointments on a very schedule-flexible basis; I am unavailable on Mondays and Thursdays, but otherwise my schedule is variable.
For these appointments, I would hope to take one hour for your responses to a series of questions. For my research purposes, I ask your permission to tape record the interview on a lecture recorder.
Thank you very much. Those interested in reading further about the nature and scope of the project, please see below.
Thank you for your time and interest!
Matthew M. Thomas
::The Project::
This project seeks to explore questions regarding the nature of the church as they are worked out in a campus ministry setting. What ecclesiologies are operative? How are they worked out? What do they say about the church? How do para-church organizations fit into various ecclesiological schemata? Why do certain groups consider themselves churches while others consider themselves thoroughly Christian, but not churches?
My point of departure has been to examine the literature on the subject of ecclesiology, drawing upon a wide range of church-historical sources from the New Testament through to the present day. This research has provided a basic background understanding of many of the foundational traditions within the greater Christian body.
When seeking out views of the church held by para-church organizations and new “non-denominational” or “free” churches, I discovered that there is very little written on the subject – at least in traditional forms. This has meant that interviews with current participants and staff people within these ministries have been vital to unearthing their core beliefs about the church.
This project will be presented in a paper whose proposed audience is campus ministry staff. It will be available after the first week of December, when it must be turned in for credit at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Appendix II: Statements of Faith for Two of the Campus Ministries Interviewed
- InterVarsity Christian Fellowship[243]
We believe in:
The only true God, the almighty Creator of all things,
existing eternally in three persons—
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—full of love and glory.
The unique divine inspiration,
entire trustworthiness
and authority of the Bible.
The value and dignity of all people:
created in God's image to live in love and holiness,
but alienated from God and each other because of our sin and guilt,
and justly subject to God’s wrath.
Jesus Christ, fully human and fully divine,
who lived as a perfect example,
who assumed the judgment due sinners by dying in our place,
and who was bodily raised from the dead and ascended as Savior and Lord.
Justification by God's grace to all who repent
and put their faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.
The indwelling presence and transforming power of the Holy Spirit,
who gives to all believers a new life and a new calling to obedient service.
The unity of all believers in Jesus Christ,
manifest in worshiping and witnessing churches
making disciples throughout the world.
The victorious reign and future personal return of Jesus Christ,
who will judge all people with justice and mercy,
giving over the unrepentant to eternal condemnation
but receiving the redeemed into eternal life.
To God be glory forever.
Adopted by the Board of Trustees
October 20, 2000
- Campus Crusade for Christ International[244]
The sole basis of our beliefs is the Bible, God's infallible written Word, the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. We believe that it was uniquely, verbally and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it was written without error (inerrant) in the original manuscripts. It is the supreme and final authority in all matters on which it speaks.
We accept those areas of doctrinal teaching on which, historically, there has been general agreement among all true Christians. Because of the specialized calling of our movement, we desire to allow for freedom of conviction on other doctrinal matters, provided that any interpretation is based upon the Bible alone, and that no such interpretation shall become an issue which hinders the ministry to which God has called us.
- There is one true God, eternally existing in three persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - each of whom possesses equally all the attributes of Deity and the characteristics of personality.
- Jesus Christ is God, the living Word, who became flesh through His miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit and His virgin birth. Hence, He is perfect Deity and true humanity united in one person forever.
- He lived a sinless life and voluntarily atoned for the sins of men by dying on the cross as their substitute, thus satisfying divine justice and accomplishing salvation for all who trust in Him alone.
- He rose from the dead in the same body, though glorified, in which He lived and died.
- He ascended bodily into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God the Father, where He, the only mediator between God and man, continually makes intercession for His own.
- Man was originally created in the image of God. He sinned by disobeying God; thus, he was alienated from his Creator. That historic fall brought all mankind under divine condemnation.
- Man's nature is corrupted, and he is thus totally unable to please God. Every man is in need of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit.
- The salvation of man is wholly a work of God's free grace and is not the work, in whole or in part, of human works or goodness or religious ceremony. God imputes His righteousness to those who put their faith in Christ alone for their salvation, and thereby justified them in His sight.
- It is the privilege of all who are born again of the Spirit to be assured of their salvation from the very moment in which they trust Christ as their Savior. This assurance is not based upon any kind of human merit, but is produced by the witness of the Holy Spirit, who confirms in the believer the testimony of God in His written word.
- The Holy Spirit has come into the world to reveal and glorify Christ and to apply the saving work of Christ to men. He convicts and draws sinners to Christ, imparts new life to them, continually indwells them from the moment of spiritual birth and seals them until the day of redemption. His fullness, power and control are appropriated in the believer's life by faith.
- Every believer is called to live so in the power of the indwelling Spirit that he will not fulfill the lust of the flesh but will bear fruit to the glory of God.
- Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church, His Body, which is composed of all men, living and dead, who have been joined to Him through saving faith.
- God admonishes His people to assemble together regularly for worship, for participation in ordinances, for edification through the Scriptures and for mutual encouragement.
- At physical death the believer enters immediately into eternal, conscious fellowship with the Lord and awaits the resurrection of his body to everlasting glory and blessing.
- At physical death the unbeliever enters immediately into eternal, conscious separation from the Lord and awaits the resurrection of his body to everlasting judgment and condemnation.
- Jesus Christ will come again to the earth - personally, visibly and bodily - to consummate history and the eternal plan of God.
- The Lord Jesus Christ commanded all believers to proclaim the Gospel throughout the world and to disciple men of every nation. The fulfillment of that Great Commission requires that all worldly and personal ambitions be subordinated to a total commitment to "Him who loved us and gave Himself for us."
Appendix III: Proposal for Further Research
I propose to add the following voices to the existing research to make the study more complete: John Smyth, Rick Warren, George R. Hunsberger, Craig Van Gelder, Darrell Guder, Stanley J. Grenz, Robert E. Coleman and Bill & Lynne Hybels. All the references that are not included in the text but are found in the bibliography could find a place in the work. I further propose to replace the sections summarized by Kärkkäinen with the appropriate primary sources.
I would also like to expand the section on extra-ecclesiality for a conference to be held at Wheaton College in April 2004, carried out through an independent study.
Finally, I would like to design another independent study on developing structures of leadership formation for a church of the type described in “Ecclesiology for the 21st Century.”
Anonymous. The Martyrdom of Polycarp.
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologicae, Supplement Qq. 17 – 68.
Arminius, Jacobus. Public Disputation 18.
Augustine of Hippo. The City of God.
_____. Confessions.
_____. De Baptismo Contra Donatistas, 5.38.
_____. Enchiridion, 15 – 17.
_____. Epistle 49.3.
_____. Epistle 61.2.
_____. Epistle 93.23.
_____. In Primum Epistolam Johannis Tractatus, 10.3.
_____. Sermon 268.2.
_____. Sermon 341.12
Baxter, Richard. The Reformed Pastor.
_____. The Saints’ Everlasting Rest, chs. 3, 4, 9, 10, 15, 16.
Basil of Caesarea. De Spiritu Sancto, 66.
_____. Epistle 188 (Ad Amphilochium), 1, 7.
_____. Epistle 217.56 – 58, 73.
_____. Regulae Fusius Tractate, 7, 37.
Bettenson, Henry, ed. & trans. The Early Christian Fathers: A Selection from the writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956.
_____. The Later Christian Fathers: A Selection from the writings of the Fathers from St. Cyril of Jerusalem to St. Leo the Great. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970.
_____. and Chris Maunder. Documents of the Christian Church. Third (New) Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, chapters 1 – 20.
Chrysostom, John. Treatise Concerning the Christian Priesthood, book 2
_____. Instructions to Catechumens
Clement of Alexandria. Instructor.
_____. Stromateis, Vii.xv, xvi.
Clement of Rome (Clemens Romanus). Corinthians, xxxix, xxx, xxxvii – xxxviii, xl – xliv.
Coke, Thomas. The Duties of the Minister of the Gospel.
Coleman, Robert E. The Master Plan of Evangelism. Grand Rapids: Revell, 1963, 1964, 1993.
Council of Trent, The. The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Rev. H.J. Schroeder, O.P., editor and translator. New York: Herder, 1941; Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, 1978.
Cyprian (Thascus Caecilius Cyprianus). De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate 4 – 7.
_____. Epistle XXXIII.1.
_____. Epistle LV.8.
_____. Epistle LIX.5.
_____. Epistle LXV.2
_____. Epistle LXVI.7.
_____. Epistle LXVII.2, 3 – 5.
_____. Epistle LXXI.1.
_____. Epistle LXXIV.4 – 5.
Cyril of Alexandria, Commentarius in Johannem 17.21.
Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures 18.
Darby, John Nelson. On Ministry: Its Nature, Source, Power and Responsibility
Davis, Leo Donald, S.J. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325 – 787): Their History and Theology. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1983, 1990.
Didache (The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles). XV.
Finney, Charles. Systematic Theology. Lectures 20, 37, 51.
Gregory of Nazianzus. Epistle 101.1.
Gregory Thaumaturgus. Canonical Epistle 2.
Grenz, Stanley J. Theology for the Community of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994, 2000.
Hilary of Poitiers. De Trinitate 8.7 – 17.
Hunsberger, George R. and Craig Van Gelder. The Church Between Gospel and Culture: The Emerging Mission in North America. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Hunt, Keith and Gladys. For Christ and the University: The Story of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship of the U.S.A./1940 – 1990. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1991.
Hybels, Bill and Mark Mittelberg. Becoming a Contagious Christian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
Ignatius of Antioch. Epistle to Polycarp, vi.
_____. Epistle to the Ephesians, i – vi.
_____. Epistle to the Magnesians, ii – iv, vi – vii, xiii.
_____. Epistle to the Philadelphians, i – iv, vii – viii, ix.
_____. Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, viii.
_____. Epistle to the Trallians, i – iii, vii, xiii.
Irenaeus. Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies), I.x.1 – 2, III.ii – iii, xxiv.1, IV.xxvi.2, xxxi.3, xxxiii.1, 7, 8.
Jerome. Commentarius in Epistolam ad Titam, 1.1, 5.
_____. Epistle 15 (Ad Damasum)
Justin Martyr (Justinus). Apology lxv.
Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Global & Historical Perspectives. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002.
Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Creeds. Third Edition. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 1972.
_____. Early Christian Doctrines. Revised Edition. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1978.
Küng, Hans. The Church. 1967; reprint, New York: Image Books, 1976.
Lake, Kirsopp, ed. & trans. The Apostolic Fathers. 2 Vols. Loeb Classical Library Edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann, 1912, 1913.
Law, William. An Address to the Clergy.
_____. A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life
Lewis, C.S. (Clive Staples). “Membership” The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses. New York: Touchstone, 1996.
Luther, Martin. Large Catechism, III.3, V.
_____. 95 Theses
_____. Smalkald Articles III.vii.
_____. Small Catechism, III.3.
_____. Table Talk 367 – 389.
The Master Christian Library. Version 5. CD-ROM resource. Albany, OR: AGES Software, 1997.
Melenchthon, Philip. Augsburg Confession, Article VII and VIII.
Origen (Origines Adamantius). Commentarii in Canticum Canticorum, ii.
_____. Commentarii in Matthaeum xii.10, 14, xiv.23.
_____. Contra Celsum iii.51, v.63.
_____. De Oratione 28.
_____. De Principiis, praefatio, 2, 4 – 5, 7 – 8.
_____. Homiliae in Ieremiam xx.3.
_____. Homiliae in Leviticum ix.9, vi.3, ix.1, xiii.3, xv.
_____. Homiliae in Librum Jesu Nave, iii.5.
Petersen, Jim. Church Without Walls: Moving Beyond Traditional Boundaries. Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress, 1992.
Polycarp. Epistle to the Philippians, vi.
Ps-Ignatius. Epistle to Hero, Deacon of Antioch, iii.
_____. Epistle to the Tarsians, viii.
Roberts, Alexander and James Donaldson. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down to 325. 10 vols. Hendrickson Reprint of 1885 edition. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.
The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. See the Didache.
Tertullian (Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus). Ad Martyres 1.
_____. Adversus Marcionem, iv.5, v.8.*
[245]_____. Adversus Praxean, 2.*
_____. Apologeticus, 39, 46.
_____. De Baptismo, 17.
_____. De Exhortatione Castitatis, 7.*
_____. De Ieiunio, 13.*
_____. De Praescriptione Haereticorum, 13, 20, 21, 32, 36, 41.
_____. De Pudicitia, 1, 13, 16, 21, 22.*
_____. De Virginibus Velandis, 1, 2, 9.
Volf, Miroslav. After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Warren, Rick. The Purpose-Driven Church: Growth Without Compromising Your Message and Mission. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.
Zizioulas, John. Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985.
