The Church: A Sketch

Other articles

Like earlier articles in Symposium, this is only a sketch of a vast topic on which large numbers of large books have been written. Its purpose is to start off some discussion on the topic, not to be definitive and provide all the answers.

I want to look at the Church from three angles: the theological Church, the practical Church, and the institutional Church. The theological Church is the Church as it is ideally described in Scripture, and especially the Book of Ephesians: the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, the Temple of God and of his Spirit, the One New Man in Christ. The practical Church is also found in Scripture, and seen around us: what the people who are a part of the Church (ie all Christians) actually do and are, collectively. The institutional Church is the Church regarded as an organisation, with its officers and meetings, and this is something which was only beginning to be hinted at in the New Testament.

The Theological Church

In some ways, the theological Church is similar to what Luther referred to as the "invisible" Church. It is certainly invisible, in the sense that we don't see it now. This is the Church as Christ regards it, a redeemed body of believers. Lewis refers to this in Screwtape Letters, where the demon Screwtape says: "One of our great allies at present is the Church itself. Do not misunderstand me. I do not mean the Church as we see her spread out through all time and space and rooted in eternity, terrible as an army with banners. That, I confess, is a spectacle which makes our boldest tempters uneasy. But fortunately it is quite invisible to these humans."

Paul's letter to the Ephesian Christians needs to be read with the consciousness that this is a letter to the Church, not to a whole lot of individuals. When he says 'you' it is plural: all of you, all of the Church at Ephesus and usually all of the Church in all times and places - not each of you individually and separately. Some of the things he says, of course, apply individually and separately as well, but that is not the main emphasis. It is unfortunate that English has only one word for 'you', both singular and plural, which along with our individualistic outlook on life makes this particularly easy to miss.

Paul uses a series of metaphors or images for the Church. I'd like to touch on them briefly. (All references, unless otherwise stated, to Ephesians.)

1. The family of God

We are adopted as sons (1:5) [the male word has historical significance to do with the inheritance practices of ancient Rome; 'children' may or may not be an appropriate gloss depending on your approach to translation and to issues which we'll discuss in the 'Women in Ministry' issue]; we are given an inheritance (1:11, 14) - and also made an inheritance for Christ, sealed with the Spirit (1:18, 13). We are part of the household of God (2:19).

2. One new man

Both Gentiles and Jews are combined in Christ into one new man (2:15), no longer divided, but incorporated into one body (see 4).

3. The temple of God

We are God's workmanship (2:10), and he is building us into a holy temple on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the cornerstone (2:19-22).

4. The Body of Christ

Paul also refers to the Body in 1 Corinthians 12, and the metaphor has become so familiar that we don't really think about it any more. What Paul says is that we have been reconciled to God in one body - Christ's body, crucified and risen (2:16). There is one (unified) body, infused by one Spirit, with one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God (4:4-6). The purpose of giving different gifts to the different body parts is to equip the saints for works of service, in order that the Body might be built up to unity and maturity, the stature of a mature man (very probably still the 'one new man' referred to earlier), by all parts working properly (4:11-16, 1 Co 12-14). By this means, the Church becomes, in effect, the means of Christ's continuing presence and work in the world.

The body is also an important aspect of the description of the Bride (see 6).

5. A witness to the power of God

The Church is not the Kingdom of God, but it is a present witness to the future Kingdom (and, according to some, the present kingdom which is now and not yet). The seating of Christ in the heavenly places is linked to the Church, his Body, to which he is Head over all things (1:20-22). The manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the Church to the rulers and authorities in heavenly places (3:10).

6. The Bride of Christ

The relationship between husband and wife is compared to (in fact, made out to be an image or reflection of) the relationship between Christ and the Church. He loves the Church as his own body, and gave himself up to sanctify her, cleanse her, and present her to himself spotless, holy and blameless.

7. The warrior against the powers of evil

The warrior of Ephesians 6 is usually seen as the individual Christian, but there is no basis for this in the text. In fact, the instructions to 'put on' the armour are given in the plural, while the pieces of armour are singular, so it is not an instruction to each Christian individually to put on the armour, but to all Christians collectively - perhaps the one new man, the mature man, although we needn't force consistency of metaphors on Paul.

All of this adds up to one thing: the theological Church is very significant. It is loved by Christ, and dearly bought, created by his agony out of former enemies - enemies of each other and of God. It is the means by which God's glory is shown to the principalities and powers, and is intimately connected with Christ's ultimate triumph when he brings all things under his feet (regardless of your millennial views or, in my case, lack of them). More than this, it exists in a continuing organic relationship with Christ as its head, and is in the process of maturing, growing to be like him and growing up in him.

It's important to realise that this is not just the Church at any given place, but the Church Universal - which also means the Church throughout history, not just at any given time period, something our anti-historical age almost always forgets. Because of our relationship with Christ, we are one body not only with all living believers but with all believers of all times including the future. (I absolutely refuse to go into the question of who belongs to the body of Christ. He knows, and I don't, and nor do you, so let's not get hung up on it, especially as it isn't directly relevant to the issue. Suffice it to say that we're likely to be surprised.)

The Practical Church

The practical Church is the earthly outworking of the theological Church. It is, if you like, the extension of the theological Church into our reality. Don't think of it as the substance; the theological Church is the substance, if anything, and the practical Church is the shadow. It's also all Christians at all times and all places, the difference being that it's Christians not as Christ sees them but as they see each other and as non-Christians see them, what they do and, in a purely earthly sense, are. The distinction is parallel to that between the redeemed, justified believer, who stands before God and is regarded in the eternal perspective with the righteousness of Christ, and the status of the same believer in his or her own eyes and the eyes of other believers and non-believers, someone in the process of sanctification and change who is still a sinner. The description in Ephesians 4 is in fact the transition point between the church regarded theologically and the church regarded practically, as people in process, who have been stealing but must now steal no more but work to have something to share, or who must be warned not to grieve the Holy Spirit.

The answers to questions regarding which Church is 'real' or 'actual' are a matter of perspective. Both are 'real'. I am 'really' clothed in the righteousness of Christ and fully justified before God; I am 'really' a sinner. The Church is 'really' a glorious body of believers, 'terrible as an army with banners' in the eyes of the enemies of God; it is 'really' faction-ridden, fleshly and feeble, 'really' a bunch of losers in bad ties. If we believe that only one of these things is 'real' or 'true' we are not seeing the full picture. The Corinthians were 'sanctified in Christ Jesus . . . in everything enriched in him . . . not lacking in any gift . . .' (1 Co 1:2, 5, 7). They were also 'fleshly . . . like mere men' (1 Co 3:3).

The tension (often outright contradiction) between the two ways of seeing the Church is far from new, and can be seen in all of Paul's letters as well as every church you or I have ever seen.

The Institutional Church

People who complain about 'the Church' do not mean the theological Church. They mean the practical Church or, more frequently, the institutional Church, that thing which for official bureaucratic purposes is regarded as the Church.

(The distinction between the practical and institutional churches is similar in many ways to the distinction between a nation and its government- meaning not only the elected or appointed rulers, but the whole apparatus of government, from the army and police through to Ross Clark serving civilly over at Transit New Zealand.) In the early centuries, when the Church was illegal, it was nascent - there were bishops, elders, deacons and what have you, but there was, of course, no official organisation called 'the Church'. It was organised, but it was not a public organisation like the cult of the Emperor or even an import and export company. From the time of Constantine, when the Church was made legal (and eventually mandatory), the institutionalisation of the Church proceeded rapidly. It had a setback at the Reformation, not so much from those we think of as 'the Reformers' such as Luther and Calvin, who still had institutional, state-linked churches, but from the 'Radical Reformation', the Anabaptists and others, who taught specifically against an institutional Church. Though I am spiritually a descendant of this tradition, churches of Anabaptist roots are now mostly institutional as well, with a paid pastor or pastors, elected elders and/or deacons, committees, meetings, set service times and so forth.

Ross Clark has suggested in his Today's Christian article 'The lines have fallen in unusual places' that there's no longer that much difference, theologically or even to a certain extent structurally, between denominations in New Zealand, and that this on the whole doesn't matter. (The distinctions are now more often found within denominations, so that an evangelical Anglican has more in common with a Baptist than with a liberal Anglican.) Even people who form breakaway churches because they don't like the institutional Church usually end up with at least some of its features because we don't know how to do things any other way. Like it or not (and mostly we don't), we seem to be stuck with the institutional Church. It has some practical advantages: People know where and when to find your meeting, and can turn up even if they don't know anyone or only know someone slightly, for instance.

It also has lots of disadvantages that we're thoroughly familiar with. I was interested to discover recently that Rotoract clubs, or at least one that someone I know is the president of, have something called 'fellowship'. In their case it involves drinking alcohol, not tea, but otherwise it bears a close resemblance to the institutional Church's idea of 'fellowship' (an informal and optional get-together after the main event), and at least has the plus that the Rotoractians are aware that it's a euphemism. There may be more genuine biblical-style sharing of lives that goes on there than in some churches at 'fellowship', as well (though I wouldn't put money on it).

All of which leads up to a good many questions, which are what I really want a response to - the above is just background (though you can have me on about it if you want). I'll set these out a bit like the 'Questions for Discussion' at the end of a chapter in a textbook.

1. 'There is today a widespread belief that one can be a Christian or develop one's own faith system apart from the church. The proposition is ludicrous. For everyone regenerated by God is by definition a part of the universal church. It's not a matter of choice or membership. 'And following the pattern made normative in the Book of Acts, each believer is to make his or her confession, be baptised, and become part of a local congregation with all of the accountability that implies [Acts 2]. So membership in a church particular [local congregation] is no more optional than membership in the church universal.'' - Charles Colson, The Body: Being Light in Darkness (Word, 1992), pp 69-70.

Discuss.

2. What is an adequate reason for leaving any church in particular? What, if anything, are adequate reasons for ceasing to attend meetings of the institutional Church in general?

3. In what realistic ways could the institutional Church change to become:

a) More relevant?

b) More attractive?

c) More biblical?

Which is most important?

4. Give, from your own experiences, ways in which institutional churches are attempting, with some success, to narrow the gap between the theological Church and the practical Church.

5. Is the distinction between the theological Church, the practical Church and the institutional Church useful? Why or why not?

6. How, if at all, can you and I influence the practical Church to become more like the theological Church?

7. How, if at all, can you and I influence the institutional Church to become more like the theological Church?

For Further Reading:

Colson, The Body. Has a good deal more to say than the brief quotation above. Is concerned almost exclusively with the practical and institutional aspects of the Church, but handles them well, with numerous illustrations from American churches and, by telling contrast, from churches suffering under Communism before the recent changes in Eastern Europe.

Today's Christian issue 31: three articles, by Mark Boyd, David Riddell and Leonie Salisbury, from different personal and philosophical perspectives on the organised Church.