Table of Contents | Next Chapter 
Chapter Fifteen
Evaluating Churches
If
God is pleased to bring about reunion of his one, true church, I tend to
think that it will be a step-by-step process. Most likely, denominations
will first merge with those denominations that are most like themselves.
Then those larger, more diverse denominations will merge with others most
like themselves and so on, doubtless with many roadblocks along
the way. One alternative might be an "evangelical COCU:"[1]
a (possibly large) group of denominations including, perhaps, some with
major differences between them, covenanting to pray, study and work
together however long it may take to bring about a large-scale
reunion. Obviously various modifications and combinations of these
ideas are possible. Others are certainly more likely than I to hit
upon the right strategy. Those so gifted should definitely
begin thinking up a good plan.
If
we are to be prepared to take steps in any such direction, we need to
develop criteria for evaluating other churches (and indeed for re-evaluating
our own).[2]
Our vision for reunion should not include every organization
that calls itself a Christian church. There are certainly bodies
that use that name-- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints, for example-- which are not Christian churches at all and
which should have no role to play in any ecumenical venture. Our
goal is reunion of the one, true
church. But what is a true church? And what denominations are suitable
candidates for mergers?
What
is a
The
Protestant Reformers suggested three criteria for a sound church: the true
preaching of the word of God, the right administration of the sacraments,
and the diligent exercise of church discipline. I believe myself that
these criteria may be misleading without some explication or even
supplementation; however I will begin by considering these. As I do, I
would remind you of an earlier point: that Scripture
requires Christians to give one another the benefit of the doubt. If
a church claims to be a Christian church, that claim ought to be accepted
unless there is cogent reason for rejecting it. The burden of proof
is upon those who would reject such claims. It is remarkable that through church
history, though there have been many schisms, it has been very rare that one
denomination has accused another of total apostasy.[3]
The Protestant Reformers did not take that position in regard to the Roman
Catholic Church, nor do many denominations today take such views of their
rivals. Thus we may expect the "burden of proof" to be very
heavy indeed. Indeed, as we shall see, it is.[4]
The
True Preaching of the Word
One's
view of what constitutes true preaching of the Word will depend somewhat
on his theological perspective. Yet it would be wrong to insist that that
preaching must agree with one's own theology in every detail in order to
constitute true preaching.[5]
As I argued earlier, some degree of tolerance is inevitable. How
much? Here I can only refer the reader to the less than definitive
suggestions of Chapter Eight.
My
personal application of those scriptural principles comes about as I ask
my conscience before God whether this or that deserves to be called
authentic gospel preaching. There is an inevitable subjective dimension to
any application of scriptural principles.[6]
This is not subjectivism,
because (1) it is an application of
scriptural principle, (2) it is the divinely ordained route to truth, and (3) each individual's
decision ought to be open to correction from others in the church;
God leads his people corporately by his Spirit.
In
my own Presbyterian circles, the discussion often centers around the
question of whether Arminians preach an authentic gospel. I hope my
Arminian readers will not be too upset if I take this as a serious
question and seek to answer it! In return, I will not offended if some
Arminian writer asks the same question about Calvinistic preaching,
especially if, as in my discussion below, he comes to an affirmative
conclusion! I want to deal with Arminianism at this point simply so that I
may illustrate the kind of thinking that we must do in order
to assess one another according to biblical standards.
Some
Calvinists think that there is in effect no truth at all in Arminianism,
that it is in fact equivalent to paganism, because it fails to affirm
a fully sovereign God.[7]
I agree with these Calvinists that the Arminian doctrine of free will is
in error, and that if all the rest of Arminian theology were worked out to
be consistent with that error the result would be paganism.[8]
However
(1) Arminian theology is not, in my judgment, developed with a view toward
consistency with that error, and indeed it does not achieve such
consistency. It is therefore, at worst, an inconsistent theology, not a
pagan theology.[9] (2) The
error in question occurs mostly in technical discussions, not in preaching
or in popular theology. Technically, Arminians regard human free decisions
(at least the decision to believe in Christ) as causeless and independent
of God's decrees. But when Arminian preachers
bring up the issue of free will (which, to be sure, they do) they tend to
use formulations which can be construed as an authentic
biblical doctrine of human responsibility. Calvinism too teaches
human responsibility, and means by that phrase that human faith, a real,
uncoerced and meaningful choice that only the individual can make, is
necessary and important to salvation. Most of the Arminian preaching I
have heard does not go beyond this picture of human responsibility. I
often wonder if the Calvinistic critics of Arminianism are fully aware of
what Calvin and the Reformed Confessions themselves teach about human
responsibility, even about "free will!"
It
is true that Calvinism teaches the total inability of man to do anything
toward his salvation. Wesleyan preachers, however, because of their view
of "prevenient grace" often tell the unbeliever that he is "able" to come to Jesus, to
make a decision for Christ. Here, however, let us note that there
are many kinds of "ability." What the Calvinist denies is that the unbeliever
has the moral ability to make the
right choice apart from saving (not merely "prevenient") grace.
He "cannot" decide to obey Christ, because he cannot do anything
that is morally right. On the other hand, even on the Calvinistic view, there
are senses in which the unbeliever "can" make the
right decision: (1) he has, usually,[10]
the mental ability to understand the choice before him and to make the
right decision; (2) he has, usually, the physical ability to do the things
which please God; (3) he is not prevented, by elements of his heredity
or environment, from pleasing God; (4) God's offer in the gospel
to save those who come to him by faith is a sincere one; those
who come to Christ he will not cast out (John 6:37). The need for grace
is genuine; but it is a need that God meets. So no one can plead lack of
grace as an excuse for failing to believe in Christ.
Preachers
rarely make these distinctions. In preaching it is not a matter of whether
the hearer has this or that kind of ability, but simply of whether he
"can" or "cannot" properly respond to the message.
Some Calvinist preachers go out of their way to inform the unbeliever that
he "cannot" come to Christ; Arminians typically seek to inform the
him that he "can," and that he is therefore responsible to do
so. Faced with those two alternatives, I'm inclined to think that the
Arminian presentation is more biblical! I say that, even though I
reject the Arminian theory of prevenient grace and free will by
which the Arminian technical theology justifies such preaching. To
tell unbelievers that they "cannot" come to Christ, while true
in a sense, is to encourage passivity on their part. It tells them
to wait and see if God will do something to them. That is not the biblical
pattern, which, without neglecting the necessity of grace,[11]
rather stresses present responsibility and encourages action. On the other
hand, the Arminian pattern of telling unbelievers that they
"can" come to Christ and are therefore responsible is true in a
sense and does properly encourage a response of faith.
Would
it not be better if evangelists made the proper distinctions between
different kinds of ability before making their appeal? Such a suggestion
does not indicate a proper understanding of the evangelistic situation. It
bids us include very technical theological distinctions in teaching people
who have no biblical discernment.
My
own conclusion, then, is that Arminian preaching is far better than
Arminian theology, better even than some of the worse forms of Calvinistic
preaching. If now and then more serious errors enter Arminian sermons, I
must be honest and recognize that serious errors often enter Calvinistic
sermons as well.
I
would have no difficulty inviting a non-Christian friend to hear the
gospel from an Arminian evangelist, or from one who, like Billy Graham,
does not draw the theological lines between the two very sharply. While I
would certainly prefer for myself and family to hear Calvinistic preaching
(not at its worst, but at its average or better) as our steady diet, I
have no hesitation in admitting that Arminian preachers, on
the average, preach the biblical gospel.
This
is the kind of mutual analysis I am recommending: discerning, analytical,
but sympathetic, not taking historical polemics for granted, but seeking
to penetrate beneath those polemics to identify otherwise hidden areas of
unity-- or diversity. It is a form of analysis that seeks not only
to identify differences, but also to assess the weight of those differences,
to see them in proper "perspective."
I
cannot, however, leave the subject of true preaching without touching on
some other areas. The discussion above pertains mostly to doctrinal
assessment. But it is also important to evaluate preaching as to
effectiveness, balance of content, style and other matters. A preacher can
be perfectly orthodox and yet be a poor communicator. If he fails to get
the gospel across to real people, can his preaching be called "true
preaching of the word?" I doubt it. Preaching is a form of communication; where
communication is lacking, preaching is not really preaching.
Or
a preacher can be perfectly orthodox and yet be hung up on certain
"hobby horses," certain pet topics which he preaches constantly
to the exclusion of other important biblical truth. That is at least as
dangerous as theological error as such. Or a preacher may be
so negative in his style and formulations that he fails utterly to
communicate the joy and freedom of the gospel. That too is a falsification.
Preaching
which presupposes an "ingrown" as opposed to "outward
facing" view of the church is a very serious deformity, for it
implicitly renounces the church's fundamental task set forth in Matt.
28:19f.
On
these criteria, much preaching which appears quite adequate from a
traditional theological analysis comes off looking very bad. I cannot say,
as some would, that the traditional theological criteria are the most
important; because these latter criteria are theological as well. They
have to do with our obedience or disobedience to God's Word.[12]
This
is why I said earlier that I have sometimes recommended for inquirers to
sit under ministries committed to traditions other than the Presbyterian.
The question is "how much truth actually gets across?" And in my
judgment, it is often the case that more truth actually gets across in
non-Reformed preaching than in Reformed preaching.
I
do believe that if we engaged in this kind of analysis, we would find more
faults in our own traditions and more virtues in the traditions of others.
So much the better for the prospects of reunion.
The
Right Administration of the Sacraments
On
this criterion, compare Chapter Nine, in which I argued a fairly liberal
view of sacramental acceptance of Christians from other denominations. The
main tradition of the church has been to accept the sacraments of
schismatics, even of some heretics, as valid sacraments, even when there
are some errors in the theology and administration of those sacraments.[13] Of
course recognizing validity of a church's baptism, for instance, is
not the same thing as agreeing with
that church's theology of baptism. Although I seriously disagree
with both Roman Catholics and Baptists as to the theology of baptism,
I do not deny that people baptized under such auspices are truly baptized.
These are both churches which hold to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed
of 381, and they are doing what Jesus commanded to initiate members
of the church. They may think they are doing much more, or they may deny
additional elements of the sacrament that I would affirm; but I cannot
deny that they are certainly baptizing, whatever else they may or
may not be doing. I would not, myself, participate in a
Roman Catholic baptismal ceremony, for I would not want to imply consent to
much of what is being said. But I cannot deny that one who receives
baptism, even in such a ceremony, is truly baptized.
Similarly
with the Lord's Supper. I agree with the Protestant reformers that the
Roman mass is blasphemous, because in it there is idolatrous worship of
the host (thought to be the literal body of Christ) and because the mass
is regarded as some sort of continuing sacrifice for sin. These are
serious errors, and they would prevent me from participating in Roman
Catholic communion unless I could get assurance that those doctrines
were not held by the particular congregation in question. Yet I do
not deny that in such circumstances the Lord's Supper is
being received. Think of a parallel with preaching (for the
Reformers usefully regarded the sacraments as
"visible words"): A sermon may contain a mixture of error
and truth. Yet the presence of error does not prove that the truth has not
also been present.
Church
Discipline
The
third mark of the church is that which maintains the presence of the other
two. I have mentioned earlier (Chapter Four) that discipline is very much
on the wane today in the church, for many reasons, among them
denominationalism itself. Very few churches actually have formal judicial
processes to discipline, especially to excommunicate those who are
involved in sin, even though scripture clearly provides for them
(Matt. 18:15-20, I Cor. 5, etc.).
The
absence of formal discipline does not, of course, mean that discipline is
totally absent. Teaching and counseling are themselves forms of
discipline. And churches do have informal ways of making unrepentant
adulterers, e.g., feel rebuked, even to the point of driving them from the
fellowship. This sort of thing is not the best kind of discipline: it is
surely better in most cases to have formal procedures available, in
addition to the informal process of mutual admonition and rebuke. That
way such matters can be dealt with fairly and in order, rather
than allowing gossip and prejudice to go unimpeded as often happens
in "informal" discipline. But informal discipline is
discipline, nonetheless.
And
in many cases informal discipline may be preferable to a formal discipline
that is harsh, arbitrary, impatient or unloving. The goal of church
discipline is always, even in the case of excommunication, to restore the
offender (I Cor.5:5).
Most
orthodox churches (judging orthodoxy roughly according to the creed of
381) have enough discipline, formal or informal, to maintain their
doctrinal and moral integrity from one generation to the next. We may well
wish for more, but the question before us is the minimal definition of a
true church. In fairness, I doubt that we will be able to remove many
bodies from the list of true churches by reference to the mark of discipline. I
would say that the major liberal denominations, as national organizations,
lack this mark; or, worse, they use discipline to punish orthodoxy and to
enforce error. An example of the latter would be the requirement of the
Presbyterian Church U. S. A. that its officers support the ordination of
women. But even to say this is not to deny that legitimate discipline
exists in these denominations, at least at the congregational and
middle (presbyterial, synodical) levels.
Other
Marks?
The
traditional marks of the church are still a fairly good guide for us to
determine what bodies are and are not true churches. However, they do not,
unless they are accompanied by elaborate explanation, adequately
characterize the distinctive qualities of the New Testament church as it
stands over against the world. For one thing, the traditional marks do not
specify the unique task to which the church is called, Matt. 28:19f.
The Great Commission may, to be sure, be seen as implicit in
the other marks, especially that of teaching, as we have seen. But
to speak merely of "teaching" may well encourage the ingrownness
of the church which I criticized earlier.
Earlier
in the chapter, I did indicate what kind
of "teaching" must be done to do justice to the Great
Commission. Here, let me go beyond that and say that the entire ministry
of the church is to be "outward facing," geared to the
salvation of the lost and their training to be mature members of the body.
A church that is not preoccupied with reaching the unsaved is not merely a
weak church; it is not properly a church at all.
Another
mark neglected in the usual enumeration is that mark Jesus mentioned when
he said "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you
love one another" (John 13:35). Earlier I mentioned that discipline
ought to be loving. But much more needs to be said here. Love, according
to Jesus, is the mark; it is the means by which Christians are to
be distinguished from the world. Paul's way of putting it is
also instructive: whatever gifts we have, whether prophecy,
tongues, knowledge, faith, generosity, none have any meaning without
love (I Cor. 13:1-3. Cf. also I John 2:10f, 3:14-18, 23, 4:7-21.)
Evaluating
churches by this mark is bound to involve some element of subjectivity.
That is true to some extent of all evaluation, but especially here.
Nevertheless, I am very reluctant to recognize as a true church a church
where discipline is harsh or mechanical, where the worst features
of bureaucracy[14]
dominate the administrative structure, where preaching is
largely denunciatory, where people have a haughty, prideful or
suspicious attitude toward Christians outside their group, where there is
no ministry to the poor, where the shepherds beat the sheep
rather than feeding and gently leading.
What
Church Should I Join?
We
should only join "true" churches, defined according to all the
marks listed above. Beyond that, God's Word allows us considerable
latitude.
In
some cases, even a true church will err in such a way as to be undeserving
of new members. For instance, if a church requires one to do something
sinful as a criterion of membership (supporting abortion, e.g., or
supporting theologically liberal colleges, seminaries, missionaries) a
believer should not join such a church.
Otherwise,
many criteria may play a role. It is natural for a Christian to seek a
church that agrees with his doctrinal position. Most of us don't believe
that we will receive excellent teaching unless the teachers of the church
interpret Scripture pretty much the way we do. But if one is a Baptist,
let's say, and the local Baptist churches lack evangelistic vision
and/or mutual love, Scripture certainly permits him to look elsewhere.
Geography,
quality of programs for youth and children, depth of worship, quality of
pastoral care all play legitimate roles in our choices. It is wrong,
however, to make a choice purely or largely on the basis of denominational
affiliation. Indeed, denominational affiliation as such is not at all
a biblical criterion, for denominations play no role in New Testament
church government. We ought to cultivate an openness to crossing
denominational lines when doing that will best meet the spiritual needs of
ourselves and our families.
What
is a Good Candidate For Church
I
can accept most evangelical Arminian churches as true churches, but I
would not advocate at this time seeking merger between them and my own
denomination.[15] Such a
merger would take many years of negotiations, and the prospect of reaching
sufficient unity of mind to merge is extremely dim. We must use our
energies in the way most helpful to the kingdom and to church unity.
Thus it makes sense first to seek union with those who are closest
to us. Presbyterians should seek union with other Presbyterians, Wesleyans
with other Wesleyans, Baptists with other Baptists, and so on.[16]
Eventually we wish to merge with all who love the Lord and who demonstrate that love by a profession of faith made credible by their lives. Who does that include? Could a united evangelical denomination ever consider merger with the Roman Catholic Church? Well, by the time we need to cross that bridge, the Roman Catholic church might have changed a great deal! If it has not changed, however, I would regard it as I regard the large liberal Protestant denominations: there are many Christians in these organizations, perhaps godly congregations and regional units as well. But as of now the organization as a whole is committed to so many serious errors that it is not a fit candidate for merger into the one, true church. Christians within the church, perhaps even congregations and bishoprics, may be candidates, but not the denomination as a whole.