The Gospel and the Church

I am reading George Barna's new book Revolution right now and I have to tell you that it's been a long time since I have had this negative a reaction to a book.  And I hate to be so negative about things like this because I know it kills discussion and interaction, but it is difficult in this case. 

The book's main thesis is that there is a revolution going on where people are leaving the church to be the church.  I'll just share one statement to illustrate:

Whether you become a Revolutionary immersed in, minimally involved in, or completely disassociated from a local church is irrelevant to me (and, within boundaries, to God). What matters is not whom you associate with (i.e. a local church), but who you are.

It's funny how someone can describe something that has been going on for hundreds of years as revolutionary.  Pious people have been feeling the need to "leave the church to be the church" or some variation on that theme for hundreds, maybe thousands of years.  I'll spare you any more details on that and will do a full review later, maybe.  For now though I want to bring up a matter that relates to this.

I fear that those of us who find mindset so appalling have given up the biblical, theological, and moral high ground that would enable us to critique such ideas.  The way we have done this is in making participation in the life of a local body of believers an addendum to the faith, instead of intrinsic to the faith.

I'll illustrate this by looking at the two evangelistic programs that I am most familiar with.  I first heard the gospel through the Four Spiritual Laws of Campus Crusade for Christ.  The other program is Evangelism Explosion, which we use at my church and which I have participated in in several churches through the years.

In both of those presentations, as in all presentations of the gospel, there is a hook which describes the benefit to be obtained.  For the Four Spiritual Laws the hook is that God loves us and has a wonderful plan for our lives and if we receive Christ we will know His love and experience His plan.  For EE the hook is eternal life, which we can have by believing in Christ.  And of course I think it is fair to say that the substance of both presentations is that you get forgiveness of sins.

Although I have heard both programs criticized by many for different reasons I think they are both fine if we understand what they are and can do.  I have previously written about these "gospel presentations" and have compared them to pedagogical devices similar to history textbooks which give you snippets of the lives of historical characters but don't give you the whole story.  For instance, in your high school American History class textbook you may have 30, 50, 70 or 100 pages devoted to the events of the American Revolution.  These pages will tell you truth about the revolution, but they don't give you the whole story.  The writer of the textbook had to pick and choose certain elements of the story to highlight to convey as much information as possible in the given time frame.  You could learn much more about the revolution if you would read David McCullough's book 1776 at 400 pages. 

My point in that is that all of these gospel presentations convey the true gospel but not the whole gospel.  The whole gospel is the whole story of Jesus and so it would have to contain all of the material of the gospels, as well as the explanatory writings of the New Testament writers.  For that matter, to know the whole gospel we would need to read the whole bible since all the Scriptures tell about Jesus, per Luke 24:25-27.

Although we might quibble with any gospel presentation regarding the order of presentation or what elements should be present I think they are at least on the right track as long as they address the holiness of God, the sinfulness of man and redemption through the cross.  They are also on the right track when they focus on forgiveness of sin, restoration of fellowship with God and eternal lifee as the benefits of redemption.

But getting back to my point I do want to address the issue of where the church fits into these gospel presentations.  In this respect, the Four Spiritual Laws and EE are representative of almost every gospel presentation I have ever heard in making membership in the church an addendum to the gospel. 

I want to be clear in my criticism here.  I am not saying that we ought to preach a gospel of church membership.  We are not saved by going to church.  In his book, Barna repeats a well worn and true statement that I myself use a variation of - that going to church doesn't make you a Christian anymore than being in Yankee stadium makes you a professional baseball player. When I use it I say that standing in a garage doesn't make you a car.  In that respect, all of the church's evangelistic presentations are correct in saying that going to church is not a cause of salvation.

The point I want to raise though, is that being a part of the church is a necessary effect of being saved. It is as necessary an effect of being saved as is having one's sins forgiven, being reconciled to God and going to heaven.  When I use the phrase "necessary effect" I am trying to distinguish between cause and effect. Salvation is because of Christ and His atoning work.  Christ's atoning work is the cause of salvation.  Some effects of this are that our sins are forgiven, we are reconciled to God and we go to heaven.  You might also say that these things are intrinsic to salvation. They are intrinsic effects, not causes of salvation.  By definition, to be saved is to have one's sins forgiven, to be reconciled to God and to go to heaven.

So, I contend that membership in the church is as necessary and intrinsic to salvation as are forgiveness, reconciliation and eternal life.  Thus, when we portray fellowship in the church as mjerely a spiritual discipline or something like that we make the necessary optional and the intrinsic an addendum.

This is not to imply that those who treat the church in such a way have a low view of the church.  Those who speak of church discipline as a spiritual discipline see it as a necessary discipline and have a very high view of the church.  But this reverses things by making the church a means of serving you in your spiritual growth, when the gospel teaches that we are created anew for the sake of the church, among other things.

Ephesians 5:25 says:

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her  

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 . Standard Bible Society: Wheaton

Christ gave Himself up for the church. To identify oneself as a recipient of the atoning work of Christ is to identify oneself as a member of the church.  To be saved is to be a part of the church.

This is where I think we lose the ability to criticize writings like Barna's.  It is because in we agree with him in principle, that the church is an optional element in the Christian life.  We can argue that his view of the church is too low, but that would be about as strong an argument as we can muster.

And I do want to be fair to Barna.  He is not telling us to abandon the church. He is telling us that we need to find a new expression of church and it may or may not entail allegiance to a local body.  In one respect I can find some common ground with him.  Though "new expression of the church" is not exactly his phrase the idea is that the church needs to be reformed and this is something I hope we all can agree with.   And I think Barna would agree in principle with my statement above that to be saved is to be a part of the church.  My biggest objection which I will bring out in the future review is making identification with a local body of believers optional. Barna distinguishes between going to church and being the church and this is where I think his biggest mistake lies.

If I may go back to Barna's previous analogy, can someone be truly said to be Yankee fan if he has no use for the New York Yankees.  Maybe he is a fan of the invisible or universal Yankees, but he just doesn't care for those particular Yankees who play up there in New York.

Throughout history, those who have followed Barna's logic have played the "universal church" or "invisible church" card.  They say that they are members of the universal church or invisible church, but this does not obligate them to be members of a particular local expression of that church.  In the church context this passes for spirituality and maturity in a way that would sound silly in other contexts.

For example, I am a married man.  By definition (contra the pc police) marriage is between a man and a woman.  By definition "woman" is "an adult female human."  The word "woman" does not refer to a particular individual but to a universal gender of humanity. If I were to tell you that I am a married man you might naturally assume that I am married to a particular woman, just as you might assume that a person who is a member of the church is a member of a church.  But suppose you asked me the name of my wife and I said "I am not married to a particular woman, I have entered into a covenant to love and be devoted to womankind in general."  Or suppose I said "I am not in a marital relationship with a particular woman, I am in a marital relationship with the invisible woman."  You would laugh at me.  Such a notion is silly.  Yet the same type of reasoning passes for maturity in the church of our day.

When believers were added to the church in the book of Acts they weren't added to the church universal, they were added to particular local expressions of the church.  To be in the church is to be in covenantal relationship with particular people as much as being married is to be in covenantal relationship with a particular person.

So, what I am advocating is that we treat active membership in the church as intrinsic to the gospel.  It is not a cause of salvation but is a necessary effect.  That individual Christians enter into a covenantal relationship with a body of Christians should be seen as inherent in faith as is forgiveness of sin, reconciliation to God and eternal life.  I have never heard anyone say "I want to be saved as long as it doesn't involve having my sins forgiven," or "I want to be saved as long as it doesn't mean I have to be reconciled to God," or "I want to be saved as long as I don't have to go to heaven when I die."   Such notions are ridiculous, and we ought to see it as similarly ridiculous for someone to say "I want to be saved as long as I don't have to be a part of a local church."

What I am not addressing is whether or not we are obligated toward a particular institutional expression of the church.  I am not saying that the true Christian will never leave one local church for another.  We take a very open handed approach at our church when it comes to members leaving.  We always want to find out why and will do what we can to convince them to stay if possible.  But when someone wants to leave to join another church, if there is no sin involved, we send them on with many hugs and blessings, as well as sorrow, but with much good will. 

So don't read anything I am saying as meaning that we are obligated toward one particular institutional expression of the church.  I am arguing against a mindset which sees as optional a covenantal relationship with a local body of believers, with all of the binding obligations and responsibilities it entails.  And I don't believe that expecting an individual believer to enter into such a relationship with a local church is any more unreasonable than expecting a married man to live with his wife.  It's just what you do when you are married, you live with the woman you married, not just any old woman. 

Nor am I saying that we need to do a total overhaul on our evangelistic strategies, but some tweaks would be nice.  As I said before, the whole gospel is a very big story and we just can't tell the whole story of Jesus in any single encounter.   In an evangelistic encounter the stuff we are talking about in part two of the presentation regarding the sinfulness of man is all true, but there is so much more we could say about sin.  Yet, I don't recommend that anyone start hauling their favorite systematic theology textbook around so that they can tell the whole story of sin.  Similarly, I don't think we need to dump a whole theology of church membership into particular evangelistic encounters.  But it also wouldn't hurt to mention that redemption from sin is not an individual affair.  Redemption from sin makes you a part of the redeemed community, not just a redeemed individual.  And the redeemed community is made up of real flesh and blood people, it's not merely a phantom-like "universal" or "individual" church.

And finally, I am not saying that we shouldn't criticize or seek to reform the faith.  Although a book like Barna's could never become a great book, it could certainly have been a much more helpful book if it had pointed out the many flaws of the church, without advocating or allowing for leaving the church

In summary I am saying we need to change our view of the church and the way we talk about it.  Rather than being an addendum to the faith, or irrelevant as Barna suggests, association with a local body of believers is inherent in the faith.

Comments

[Jack Breed]

I'm not a blogger, just wandered on to this website following up on a reference to David Wayne in World Magazine. Just wanting to howdy up Rev. Wayne.

[Jacob Allee]

Amen! I think 1 Corinthians 12 speaks loudly of the importance of believers coming together to be effective, not to mention numerous other text's in the word of God.

I recently received this illustration on e-mail, I think it says a lot. Here it is:

The Quiet Sermon

A member of a certain church, who previously had been attending services regularly, stopped going. After a few weeks, the pastor decided to visit him.

It was a chilly evening. The pastor found the man at home alone, sitting before a blazing fire. Guessing the reason for his pastors visit, the man welcomed him, led him to a comfortable chair near the fireplace and waited.

The pastor made himself at home but said nothing. In the grave silence, he contemplated the dance of the flames around the burning logs. After some minutes, the pastor took the fire tongs, carefully picked up a brightly burning ember and placed it to one side of the hearth all alone. Then he sat back in his chair, still silent. The host watched all this in quiet contemplation. As the one lone ember's flame flickered and diminished, there was a momentary glow and then its fire was no more. Soon it was cold and dead.

Not a word had been spoken since the initial greeting. The Pastor glanced at his watch and realized it was time to leave. He slowly stood up, picked up the cold, dead ember and placed it back in the middle of the fire. Immediately it began to glow, once more with the light and warmth of the burning coals around it.

As the pastor reached the door to leave, his host said with a tear running down his cheek, "Thank you so much for your visit and especially for the fiery sermon. I shall be back in church next Sunday."

We live in a world today, which tries to say too much with too little. Consequently, few listen. Sometimes the best sermons are the ones left unspoken.

[Ken]

"The Four Spiritual Laws" are a direct swipe from The Spiritual Exercises of St Ignatius Loyola (yes, the Jesuit training/meditation), summarized down to four quick talking points instead of the four full chapters of Loyola's original work.

[marc]

Jolly,

We just appointed an elder at our church (Bethlehem Baptist in MPLS, MN - read:REFORMED) that gave the testimony that he was drawn to Christ through that little 4 Spiritual Laws tract. Now at BBC, we would use a different approach/tract for theological reasons, but the Lord used that means in this guys' case. He would agree with your assesment I think, that the traxt contained the Gospel, but not the Whole gospel.

Thanks for your thoughts on Barna's book,

Marc

P.S. For some reason you don't have my blog PURGATORIO in your Culture links...

[robert Roberg]

I noticed you quoted Eph.5:25 and called the church "her."
The church is not female unless the body of Yahshuah has changed sex. And the church is not our mother,
But we do have a mother, according to Gal 4:26 it is the New Covenant
"For these are the two covenants..
1) Mt Sinai (Old covenant)
2) Jerusalem from Above (New Covenant)
" But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother" -26

[marc]

So let me get this straight Robert, the Bride of Christ can't be referred to as her (her = autes - noun pronoun genitive feminine 3rd person singular)

Also the Church is refered to in the new testament as the body of Christ (Kristos), not the body of Jesus (or Yeshua if you prefer to Hebrewize the greek text, though it didn't bother Paul (a Jew) or the other NT authors to write Jesus name in Greek).

[Sherry]

Isn't this very similar to Baptist reasoning on baptism: being baptized is a necessary effect of being saved. It doesn't save you, but it does proclaim your entry into both the church local and The Church Universal. You former Baptist, you!

[cavman]

Sounds like the book "Churchless Faith". I wonder how you can expect to "be the church" when you reject the church. Ain't possible. Especially when we consider that you cannot hate your brother and love God (1 John).
If we also look at our union with Christ. We are united to one another as well (Paul's illlustration of the Body). My finger cannot survive long if I chop it off. It is no longer connected to the life blood. Cyprian was correct, there is no salvation apart from the church (unless you are on a deserted island- except you are still spiritually united)[apologies to Robert, look below].

Robert- sorry, you are mixing your metaphors. He uses the Body earlier in Ephesians. But surely you would not say that the Bride of Messiah is male?
The Jerusalem above, in Rev. 21-22, is the living temple (Eph. 2 & 1 Peter 2)comprised of the united people of God (Jew & Gentile)we call the assembly, or ekklesia, or church. We do not 'replace' Jews, but are grafted on the vine with Jews who believe- which is awesome really. So the church through the ages is indeed our mother.
I am glad you have embraced Messiah!

[djchuang]

While I've not read the Barna book Revolutionary, my read on his perspective is more observational. That is, my blind guess is that Barna is saying that he has is observing and anticipating that growing numbers of people are leaving and will leave the institutional church because of large problems with the institutional church, and these problems are not being addressed in a revolutionary kind of way. And it may be a rhetorical technique to shout louder about the problems, and to show the symptoms, so that more people will work on the solutions, particularly those who are in institutional churches, and to allow for new solutions as well. It is possible to uphold Hebrews 10:25 without institutionalizing -- case in point being house churches and monastic communities, association with other followers of Christ without institutionalizing in the formal sense.

[Steve S]

In many ways, I want to agree with this post, but there are elements that I'm not sure I can accept wholesale. You refer to a "covenantal relationship" when defining an expression of the local Church. And yet, I think this is exactly where the institutional church has gone down the wrong path. I don't see "covenants" in the NT churches, unless you're using that word in a different way than I'm used to seeing it used in churches (i.e., signing a covenant agreeing to support the church by regular attendance and tithing, etc.).

I haven't read Barna's book yet, but it will be interesting to read, and is definitely on my list.

steve :)

[David Wayne]

Steve - right-o! I am using the term "covenantal relationship" in a different manner. I'm not using it like churches do when having their members sign a "church covenant," I am using it to acknowledge the truth that to be a Christian is to be in covenant with Christ and our fellow believers. We are members of a covenantal community, so I am trying to highlight the implications of this.

DJ - I think it is obvious that I'm none too thrilled with this book but I hope I came through as charitable in acknowledging that Barna isn't saying that we do away with the notion of church altogether and acknowledging that the revolutionaries are simply talking about finding and creating new communities. Still, I don't think he is giving enough weight to believers responsibilities to their existing communties. In Barna's book it seems that the community is there for me, not me for the community.

Sherry - I'm a former baptist and proud of it! I love dem baptists! And, at least in this regard the baptists and presbyterians aren't that far off. We believe the same things about baptism as they do, we just believe more than they do in regard to baptism. I hadn't thought of it, but your analogy actually helps. When someone comes to Christ they are baptized into Christ and ceremonial baptism expresses this spiritual reality. Believers do have an obligation to participate in a physical kind of baptism as a reflection of their spiritual baptism. Similarly, I think a case can be made that believers have an obligation to unite with an actual, physical community of believers as a manifestation of their spiritual union with all believers of all times. I know that analogy breaks down somewhere, but I think its pointing in the right direction.

[DLE]

At issue here is our meeting together. The Bible says we should meet together. I think all Christians would say we need to meet together. The question then becomes one of form. If a dozen of us meet together in my home, celebrate communion and enjoy a Love Feast, plus worship together, is that not the fellowship of believers? What difference does the building make? What difference does the membership roll make?

If I kept an open home and always welcomed believers, and those believers started coming through this place and enjoying the fellowship that forms here, how is that not meeting the requirements laid down in the NT?

Isn't Francis Schaeffer's L'Abri as much a church as First Presbyterian church down on the corner?

And what about the Chinese house church movement, the very "lack of a building" and "formal rolls" being the reason that Christianity has been able to survive in China under the Communists?

Are there plusses to meeting in a large, established church building and calling what we do there "church?" Sure! But there are just as many advantages to NOT doing it that way, the LACK of a building being one of them. Should the government decide to take the tax exemption away from churches in the US (and with communities trying to tweak zoning laws to keep churches out of taxable areas, don't think that's not the next step), that huge church property will become a black hole for property taxes and such.

If the Church in America ever has to go underground, we'll have to rethink all our formality on this issue anyway. Better start now.

[David Wayne]

Dan - I agree wholeheartedly with you about buildings and some of the more institutional trappings of the church.

One point I didn't make in this post but hope to flesh out in another post is that in Barna's book he only takes three passages out of the book of Acts and builds a whole theology of the church on them. He didn't reference anything from the epistles and especially the pastoral epistles.

Similarly, in the example you have offered here I agree that the things you suggest you might do in your home are things that the church does, but those aren't all that the bible says the church is to do. The bible says this church is to have elders and deacons, and there is a qualifying process that those leaders are supposed to go through. The preaching of the word is to take place in the church and not just by anyone who wants to, they have to be qualified.

Granted you and your group could do that at your home, but I have to ask whether or not you are in a mission situation or not. If you are in a mission situation then absolutely, go for it. But, if you are here in America and all of the people you are meeting with are not new believers I am going to guess that most if not all of you left an existing church. So now we have to ask if you had biblical reasons to leave. In Barna's book it seems to be acceptable to leave a church because that church is holding you back or doesn't share your passions. But does the bible give that as a reason for leaving a church? How does leaving a church for those reasons square with the believers responsibility to be submissive to their elders?

And on and on I could go. Like I mentioned in the post I'm not as rigid in practice as I might be coming across here. When people leave us for a sister church I don't give them a hard time but I just want to show that there is a lot more to this than most people think. Further, I'm not just arguing for institutionalism as Barna suggests, there are good biblical reasons to oppose his ideas.

[Steve S]

Churches MUST have elders and deacons? Biblical basis for "leaving" a church? Teaching only by a "qualified" person (define "qualified", please.) Surely you don't think you can say that without giving some supporting Scriptures, do you? ;)

The epistles and Acts seem to reference ONE body in an entire city, expressed physically by meetings in various homes. At least here in America, we are so far from that concept as to look nothing like it.

A personal example of what I discovered when visiting Ukraine in 1992 (just months after the underground church was able to come above ground). We met in people's homes. As we travelled from house to house, we saw many of the same people there, even though it was technically a "different" church. In other words, they were all part of THE church in that city, but were able to fellowship in various locations with various groups of people from that church. Unfortunately, even that shortly after being able to worship openly, they were already being encouraged by American pastors and missionaries to build big buildings in order to have church. I haven't been back in the 13 years since, but I would venture a guess that the church is very different there now.

We must be careful not to read our institutional structures into the Scripture, but rather to let the Scripture inform what structures we actually put into place.

steve :)

[Herobill]

the famous 4SL tract is aimed at individuals, sets up a problem and offers a solutions for individuals, and all evenagelism seems to be aimed at individuals. Even Billy Graham fills stadiums but talks to individuals...

And you wonder why the church got left out? Strike that - reverse it. Maybe para-church evangelism people left a dead, dry church and replaced that void in their lives with a sense of mission.

Someone should write a history of the past 100 years of that trend.

Great post, by the way. I think I read 80% of it, and agree with many of your points. Thanks.

[cavman]

Steve,
The pastoral epistles contain essentially all David referred to. One of the focuses of these 3 letters is the problem of false doctrine in the church. False teaching produces an unhealthy church... eventually leading to 'death' if not corrected.
The basic reasons for leaving a church are found here- false teaching, lack of church discipline (particularly against false teachers). Timothy was to pass on the right doctrine to faithful men, who will be able to pass them on (2 Tim. 2:2). These would sound amazingly like the elders he mentioned in the previous letter (1 Tim 3). Paul says such a man also manages God's household. These qualifications are those David mentions- character, sound in doctrine and able to teach (also Titus 1, where he tells Titus to appoint such men.
We are not commanded to appoint deacons, but they are for the well-being of the church. This is why most Presbyterian denoms do not require deacons to be an 'organized church', only elders.
I don't think Dave is reading an institutional structure into Scripture. The structure is present, and has been applied well and poorly in various circumstances (as well as utterly ignored in others).

Dave- maybe you should stop giving us the benefit of the doubt regarding Scripture references. ;-)

[David Wayne]

Cavman - I agree - I thought it was patently obvious on the surface but I guess I was wrong.

In addition to the pastoral epistles we have the example of the book of Acts - whereever there was a church there were elders who governed the church. In the book of Acts we have 11:30, 14:23, 15 (Council of Jerusalem), 20:17ff, and 21:18.

In Acts 6:3 even those who are passing out food must meet certain qualifications.

Ephesians 4:10-13 speaks of the appointment of certain officers for the equipping of the saints.

James 3:1 speaks to the fact that there should be relatively few who teach.

Hebrews 13:17 speaks of the believer's duty to obey and submit to their leaders.

Steve S. - please don't take this as getting testy with you, because you are not the only one who has said the things you have said, but I and many others do get weary of being accused of defending some kind of "instititutionalism" (as if that is a bad thing in and of itself) when we insist on applying the whole of Scripture to a particular matter. Like I said, I'm not trying to pick a fight and I do appreciate your comments and hope you will keep coming back.

[Steve S]

Guys, I appreciate your responses. However, I think you might have missed the point of my questions and read me as biblically illiterate. That's not at all where I was coming from. In wrestling through this issue, I have spent MUCH time studying the Scripture and searching for an understanding of what we are to do and be as "the church". Additionally, I have spent years ministering (including pastoring) at various levels in the very institution we discuss. So this is not some newbie with no understanding behind the questions. The reason I asked for biblical bases for David's comments is because I, too, am weary of certain verses being used to defend ASPECTS of the institution (I'm not blasting the institution as a whole).

I didn't realize, however, that this was a subject you were "weary of", David, and so I don't want to belabor the point. I was questioning the finer points of the words you used such as "qualification process" for teachers, etc. That was where I feared that you might be reading back into the text based on our current structures of the church. Over the centuries, the church has constantly found ways to "formalize" principles in Scripture so as to "protect" the truth. These formalizations, in my opinion, often lend themselves to the very danger that Christ pointed out in the Pharisees -- they ended up emphasizing THEIR protective layer around the truth rather than the truth itself. (NOTE: I am NOT saying you are being like the Pharisees. I'm talking about the extreme misapplication of verses that I have seen in other conversations similar to this one.) That is the danger that concerns me in discussions such as these. For example, you reference Ephesians 4, and yet the passage is talking about gifts that were given to the body, not positions to be filled. In no way do I debate the existence of elders, deacons, pastors, teachers, prophets, evangelists, etc. etc. etc. But they exist as gifted by the Holy Spirit, and not as a title on a staff at a corporation. Leaders exist in the church because they are mature and gifted and recognized as such in the body. They are not put through a "qualification process" -- they have lived out the qualification process. Any appointments referenced in the New Testament are mere recognitions of what the Holy Spirit had already done.

With regard to "leaving a church", that concept doesn't even show up in the New Testament. We see people being put OUT of the church (i.e., for church discipline, false teaching) but the idea of having biblical grounds for leaving a church is noticeably absent from Scripture. The idea wasn't that you were to leave the church and go elsewhere (where would they go?!? It was a city-wide church, so I guess they would have to move to another city) but that the false teachers or unrepentant sinners would be dealt with properly and THEY would be removed.

At any rate, I am fine disagreeing with you guys. In reading your posts, David, I sense that your heart is genuine, and I don't take offense to your thoughts. I just wanted to try to dialogue a bit about it. No harm intended, honestly. (Maybe I did end up belaboring the point anyway...I'm sorry!) :)

steve :)