The Church is not ONLY Invisible
Michael Brown
19 Comments
As treacherous as the first error is (i.e. thinking of the church as being only [or even primarily] visible), the second error is no less deadly and unquestionably more common in American evangelicalism. How many times have you met a professing Christian who does not attend church regularly, let alone possess membership in a particular congregation? The reasoning of such people usually goes something like this: “I don’t need to worship God in a formal setting or belong to a particular congregation; I have a personal relationship with Jesus and worship God in my own way.” Such reasoning, however, is not based on Scripture, but on the pagan concept that “organized religion” should be set against “spirituality:” the former is disparaged as passé at best and hatefully intolerant at worst, while the latter is readily embraced as chic and healthy. Organized religion is viewed as something very particular that manifests itself in narrow doctrines, liturgical customs and exclusive tradition. Spirituality, on the other hand, is seen as something universal that can express itself in a wide variety of personal faiths and individual practices that generally seek one common goal, namely, self-improvement. Influenced by this mode of thinking, many professing Christians believe they can have membership in the invisible church while opting out of membership in the visible church.
But such a concept is foreign to Scripture. The New Testament reveals to us a church established by Christ that is not purely invisible, but an observable society made up of real flesh and blood members and real organization and structure. It is a kingdom described as a “chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession” (1 Pet 2.9a; cf. Ex 19.6). The King of this kingdom, the Lord Jesus, rules his citizens by his Word and Spirit through the officers he has appointed at the local congregation. He has furnished his kingdom with ministers of the Word so that his people will grow from spiritual infancy to spiritual maturity (Eph 4.7-16). He has ordained the offices of pastor and elder as guardians to watch over the souls of his flock and ensure that everything is done decently and in good order (Acts 14.23; Phil 1.1; 1 Tim 3.1-7; 5.17; Titus 1.5-9; Heb 13.17; 1 Pet 5.1-4). He has provided the office of deacon in order that the poor and needy in the church would be cared for (Acts 6.1-7; Phil 1.1; 1 Tim 3.8-13; 5.3-15). He has commanded that discipline be exercised to maintain the purity and peace of his church (Mt 18.15-20; 1 Cor 5; 2 Thes 3.6, 14-15; Titus 1.10-14; 3.9-11). He has supplied his church with the tangible elements of ordinary bread, wine and water, which the Holy Spirit uses to nourish our faith (1 Cor 10.16; 11.17-34; cf. John 6.41-58).
All of this Christ has provided to his church in his infinite wisdom. Nevertheless, some professing Christians try to be wiser than Christ. The person who abandons the church or does not see his need to be under the spiritual care of ministers and elders in a local congregation, seems to think that he knows what is best for his spiritual wellbeing and sanctification, even if it is contrary to what God has revealed. Being turned off by life in the visible church, he opts for a life of “Lone Ranger Christianity” – acting as pastor, elder and deacon to himself and abstaining from the means of grace in the preached gospel and the sacraments to the injury of his own soul (Heb 10.24-25).
For this reason, we confess in Article 28 of the Belgic Confession: “We believe, since this holy assembly and congregation is the assembly of the redeemed and there is no salvation outside of it, that no one ought to withdraw from it, content to be by himself, no matter what his status or standing may be.” The fact that in this life the visible church is imperfect and mixed with hypocrites gives no Christian the right to depart from it. As the Third-Century church leader Cyprian put it, “You cannot have God for your father unless you have the Church for your mother. If you could escape outside Noah’s ark, you could escape outside the Church.” Except in otherwise extraordinary cases, a person cannot belong to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church without also belonging to a visible manifestation of the same, which, according to the New Testament, is the local congregation that preaches the gospel, administers the sacraments and exercises church discipline.
Thinking about these things, we are able to see why the distinction of the visible-invisible church is such an important one. Until the Head of the church returns, the church is both visible and invisible. When He returns, however, the distinction will no longer exist, as the church visible and invisible will be one and the same.
Reader Comments (19)
It's interesting how those who disparage visible Church membership by hiding be the "spirituality" category seem to be advocating an almost atheistic concept of spirituality, one that does not necessitate a community or an identifiable and personal God, just the individual and their intentions.
These posts are great and getting better.
There is also that thing called "under-confessionalism,' where folks try to have their cake and eat it, too, I think. It's the same spirit that underlies things in my CRC like the "Revision to the FOS." There is a hat-tip to lesser or greater degrees to a high view but with fingers quite crossed--which really turns out to be a low view/high opinion.
To be honest, I don't really know too many "lone rangers" who have actually departed the Church. What I do find are plenty who retain their membership but only out of some ceremonialism as they go about a more "spiritualistic" piety over against a churchly one. I think this is nothing new, as you can see this in the "Conventicles" of yesteryear, etc.
The real danger, I think, isn't so much those who are literal lone rangers but those who are figurative lone rangers, those who remain within but whose spiritualism militates against a churchly piety.
Zrim
I think that when the "lone ranger" Christian-and I have known a few-depart the faith, it is implicit rather than an overt action. It must be kept in mind that for many in the pop culture church, an identifiable church membership is not even a category; the corporate church being the manifestation of a few of the universal church gathered together in their eyes...But as for those within the confessional system, I heartily agree and assent to the confession of convenience and social membership.
Lone rangers should "go the whole way," as Paul might say, and just leave. But most don't. They stick around, and what evolves is a more cultural or social view of church membership. If you ask me, the CRC is a case in point more and more every day. The latest NTJ has a piece on that very topic, and I think it is spot-on.
Zrim
You raise an interesting and valid point, Zrim. I am not sure, but it may be the case that what you are describing is in reality more common in the Dutch Midwest, whereas the lone rangers may in fact be more common out here on the West Coast. For our part, lone rangers are a very common thing. The rise and popularity of non-denominational churches out here (especially Calvary Chapel, which was basically a baptized hippie movement) has made low-ecclesiology and radical individualism very commonplace.
But I suspect that you can find that masked man riding Silver out there in Michigan too!
Hasn't anyone wondered, What's with the picture?
Ummm, is it the White Horse Inn by any chance?
Mike,
True. Our subcultures may be a part of the mix. What I noticed when I was scouting out Christ Reformed for an internship (back in another galaxy and life), Riddlebarger took us around the town and pointed out "sites" that looked somewhat irrelevant anymore to you SCers but yet very relevant still to we midwesterners (i.e. Swindoll's place, Crystal Cathedral). Seems that things may begin out west and move their way eastward. It may a few years before we see your lone rangers!
Yes, I have wondered about the pic...maybe Dee Dee knows?
Zrim
I actually have been wondering, what's with the picture. Took me reading all the posts to get to the question. So?....
I will buy a pint of Guinness or a 22 oz. of New Belgium's 1554 (or even something less masculine) for anyone who can figure it out.
BTW, Dee Dee, in case you are wondering, it has nothing to do with St.Sinatra. I'm sorry.
It's not a "visible" church...steeple...is there a church ("invisible" in the photo)in there somewhere. Is that what you're getting at. A smooth Guinness might help me figure it out...what a motivater
So Stellman wasn't right...but maybe he was close...
Is a hotel? You know, people coming and going at whim, etc.?
Very close, Faith. Almost a winner.
I guess the transformationalism isn't taking...I can't figure it out...
OK, here it is...It's a picture of Cafe Le Palme, which is about 15 feet from the left (from the perspective of the photo) of Heiliggeistkirche (i.e. Holy Spirit Church, the church of which Casper Olevianus was pastor in Heidelberg, the one that appears in the two previous photos).
It's an Italian restaurant that, when my wife and I lived there in '90-92, was reasonably priced. It was our favorite place to eat. They had the best calzones.
And yes, it sort of fits with the post, I think. One who shirks the visible church but thinks he is still a member of the invisible church will happily go to an establishment to feed the body, but not one to feed the soul (even if it is 15 feet away and preaching the Gospel).
Now I'm hungry and thirsty!
Looks like Mike gets to buy himself some suds. Congrats, Mike. But you have to admit, that was tough, especially for those of us who haven't lived across the pond. Having special insight just really isn't my bag! If I couldn't figure that one out, how am I supposed to transform the world again?
Yes, it was tough. But like I told you before, I'll buy you a pint if I ever make it out to GRusalem. Besides, you could have blown up the photo and read the street sign and menu!