The Church of Christ (X)

The Marks or Notes of the Christian (III)
In this installment we’ll finish what the Belgic Confession teaches us about the marks of the true and false churches. It has been instructive to listen to this confessional statement from the Reformation, although at times it might have sounded strange to our ears. Next time, Lord willing, we’re going to begin on an analysis of Brian McLaren’s new book Everything Must Change. With a title like that, you just have to know that this is going to be a real “toe-tapper.” This is McLaren’s (vain and lame) attempt at some form of ethics. It is quite expansive in its reach: Everything and, given the fact that the Emergent chit-chat doesn’t care for authority, the word Must seems like a bit of a fremdkörper in the Emergent church vocabulary. Anyway, if you like really left-wing Socialism in Birkenstocks, then McLaren is the kinder, gentler guy to read.
For today, however, we want to continue listening to what the B.C. teaches about the lives/marks of true believers. By way of quick review, here is what has been said concerning them up to this point: “With respect to those who are members of the Church, they may be known by the marks of Christians; namely, by faith, and when, having received Jesus Christ the only Savior, they avoid sin, follow after righteousness, love the true God and their neighbor, neither turn aside to the right or left, and crucify the flesh with its works.”
To the modern church-goer this description not only sounds quite strange, but probably overly pious as well. Modern Christians are not adept at avoiding sin because their pastors will not talk to them about sin and are afraid if they do their “audience” will “beat feet” out of the building. All the talk about walking the straight and narrow path and not turning to the right or left is about as appealing, hip, and upbeat as crucifying the flesh with its works.
Did you see the latest episode of Desperate Housewives? No, I was busy crucifying my flesh and its works. In short, to date, with all the talk about engaging the culture, most Christians don’t have a clue what that means (neither do their pastors, by the way) and have settled in on getting engaged by the culture rather than engaging it. Granted engaging the culture is a complex issue, but it would seem with all the intense admonitions for modern Christians to get out and engage the culture it might be helpful for someone to give a few helpful specific references to precisely which culture (high, medium, low, pop, hip-hop) we’re supposed to engage and how we are to engage it. Otherwise engaging the culture becomes an abstraction that is discussed while drinking beer and shooting pool at the local pub or eating suicide chicken wings at Hooters.
What strikes me about this description of the true marks of Christians is the pastoral approach that de Brès employs. He’s not dealing with abstractions or “pie-in-the-sky” descriptions. Here is a man who is both a good theologian and a pastor. That breed is rapidly dying out and is all but extinct in the modern Church. If the breed is not yet dead in mega-church and Emergent church circles it is on the endangered species list.
In this confessional statement we’re not fed the myth of the “model” or “perfect” or “victorious” Christian, but rather the Christian who struggles against sin daily. The caveat is, however, that they do struggle against it. Here is the qualifier de Brès uses, which is the pastoral and realistic approach: But this is not to be understood as if there did not remain in them great infirmities.
The true believer has not and will not reach perfection in this life. They know—from Scripture and experience—that they still have to struggle against great spiritual infirmities all their lives. How do they cope with all that doctrinal expository preaching that tells them about sin? They listen carefully and also hear about grace; God’s wondrous grace of forgiveness because of Jesus Christ.
Many today believe that the gospel can no longer be preached as it was before. I totally disagree because the Savior is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb. 13:8). I also wonder how sin has changed significantly since Adam and Eve fell. Anyway, the answer that de Brès gives is that Christians will struggle against sin until they draw their last breath. The rest of his explanation goes like this: But they fight against them (the infirmities) through the Spirit all the days of their life, continually taking their refuge in the blood, death, passion, and obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom they have remission of sins, through faith in him.
The Holy Spirit working in and through the Word of God strengthens them in and for this spiritual battle. The Spirit also teaches them about prayer, the use of the sacraments, and Christian fellowship as God’s ordained means of grace in addition to the preaching of the Word. And when they sin—not if they sin—they take refuge in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. De Brès uses words like “blood,” “death,” and “passion” to describe the Savior. Oh yeah, he also uses one more, but that word—according to the Federal Visionists—shouldn’t be there. Surely, truly, de Brès must be mistaken when he refers to the obedience of Christ. Why, whatever might that mean? Are we to assume that a good Reformed man like Guido de Brès entertained a notion of the active obedience of Christ somehow being applied to the life of the believer?
According to some, the gospel must be “repackaged,” but what Luther referred to in Wider Hans Worst as the “old faith” seems to make good sense. Believers fight, struggle against sin through the Holy Spirit all their lives; they continually—because of indwelling sin—take their refuge to the total Christ exclusively; believe that he fulfilled all righteousness—including keeping the Law of God according to its letter and spirit—for them; and that through his Person and Work alone they have remission of sins. How? By faith, which contains a sure knowledge and firm confidence (head and heart), they are assured that Christ loves them and gave himself for them (cf. Gal. 2:20). I think I’d rather know that than shoot pool or eat chicken wings at Hooters.
But what is the “false” church all about? Few pause to ask or ponder that question anymore. Church choices are made on substantially more pragmatic motives. Even with the mega-church movement waning, that does not mean that we should expect a return by them and their staffs to a more regulative form of worshiping God. What do you do if your mega-church is in trouble? The answer is easy: You hire some public relations experts to tell you which way the wind is blowing and you conform to the theology du jour. So if Bill Hybels’ Willow Creek is losing interest and by their own admission have not fulfilled what they initially set out to do, Bill simply makes a “Dr. Spock-esque” confession and looks forward to bringing in the Emergent chit-chat for a Spring conference.
I’m going to allow de Brès’ remarks concerning the false church simply to pass in review and will have ample opportunity to comment on them when we examine McLaren’s new book. What, then, are the marks or notes of the false church? As for the false church, it ascribes more power and authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit itself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does it administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in his Word, but adds to and takes from them, as it thinks proper; it relies more upon men that upon Christ; and persecutes those who live holily according to the Word of God and rebuke it for its errors, covetousness, and idolatry.
Clearly, the historical context of these words points us to the Roman Catholic Church, but mutatis mutandis the words can also apply to the modern Church at the front end of the 21st century as well. Two examples will suffice. Perhaps it’s just me, but I have viewed the title of N.T. Wright’s What Saint Paul Really Said as just a tad on the arrogant side. For approximately 2,000 years the Church has stumbled in blindness regarding one of the key, essential doctrines of salvation and the Church: justification by faith. Thankfully, Bishop Tom has come along to enlighten the Church. The same type of gross and blatant arrogance is evident in McLaren’s books, but his latest really is off the charts when it comes to the arrogance factor. Time after time, McLaren will take a text and attempt to convince the reader that it really means just the opposite of what it says. He also adeptly dismisses the history of the Church as an exercise in ignorance. Thankfully, the Church has now been blessed with Tom and Bri!
It is shockingly amazing and amazingly shocking that McLaren can correct two thousand years of muddleheaded theology, but still doesn’t seem to know what Scripture teaches about the atonement or homosexuality. He will, no doubt, clear those matters up as well in subsequent treatises. Unbelievable!
Here’s de Brès’ parting shot: These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other. Have you done the requisite investigation? Are you certain that where you are attending now or where you are a member now is a true Church? If you haven’t ever thought about this, today might be a good day to start.

The Church of Christ (VII)

The Marks or Notes of the Church (II)
We are examining what the Belgic Confession relates to the Christian Church about what the “marks,” “notes,” or “distinguishing characteristics” of Christ’s Church are. The Belgic is doing this for a very spiritual and pastoral reason, namely to give Christians some guidelines regarding what they ought to be looking for as they seek a church home. By way of a quick review, here is what the author included in Article 29 of his confession: “The marks by which the true Church is known are these: if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing sin; in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church.”[1]
Last week we outlined what is meant by the “preaching of the pure doctrine of the gospel,” so now we’re going to progress to the proper administration of the sacraments and church discipline.

The Pure Administration of the Sacraments
There are few things sacrosanct in the modern Church anymore. Someone sent me a film clip recently of a United (or Untied) Methodist church celebrating what was ostensibly the Lord’s Supper. All the adult recipients were dressed in clown costumes, which, given the United Methodist mindset, was probably appropriate. That debacle gave new meaning to the song Send in the Clowns. There were smiles and laughter all around during that ludicrous display. The female pastor appeared to be enjoying it most of all. There would not have been a complaint if God had zapped them all then and there. The next day’s headlines could have read: “If it weren’t an act of God, it should have been!”
In another unrelated clip I received, a 12-year-old boy was being baptized in a Baptist church. The sacrament was administered and the boy disappeared off camera. As the pastor began to make some concluding comments, the young boy came back into the range of the camera as he performed a cannonball into the baptistery. There was a huge splash, soaking the pastor. The entire church roared in laughter. The pastor was obviously surprised and shaken by the unexpected event and made some nervous impromptu comments, smiling and giggling. As I watched that desecration I was livid. That young boy should have been read the riot act then and there for the manner in which he despised God’s sacrament and made such light and sport of it. Ample time should have been taken, once the pastor regained his composure to explain to all who laughed why this was no laughing matter.
I’ll grant that these are two extreme examples; I’m willing to let them stand as exceptions and not the rule. Nevertheless, the modern Church could most definitely “tighten up” its administration of the sacraments. When de Brès penned these words, he was directing his words primarily against the Roman Catholic Church and to another degree the Remonstrant’s Church as well. The doctrine of transubstantiation is unbiblical and is to be rejected. In other words, de Brès taught that both transubstantiation and the mere “remembrance meal” were not biblical; they were wrong. There’s a novel thought for the 21st century Church: there is such a thing as right and wrong; such a thing as what is pleasing to God and what isn’t.
Several years ago, when I was a pastor in Toronto, Canada, our family had traveled for vacation to the island off the NC coast where my parents lived. After two wonderful weeks of warmth and sunshine, we drove inland to Charlotte, NC, where Sally’s parents lived. We attended church with them on Sunday—it was the Sunday before Resurrection Sunday (otherwise known as Easter). It was an evangelical congregation and the pastor announced that at next Sunday’s service the Lord’s Supper would be served. He went on to say that it really didn’t matter to him if you were Roman Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Pentecostal, or whatever other denomination, he was going to ensure that you would be comfortable and that he intended to make it a meaningful experience for you. I leaned over to my wife and whispered that I wished we could stay over, if for no other reason than I’d like to have seen how he was going to pull it off.
If you don’t know the decided differences between, say, Roman Catholic and Reformed and Presbyterian views on the Lord’s Supper then you are probably a product of public schools and of a “community” church. (Don’t go getting testy! I’m joking—sort of. I’m the product of the public school system, but in the pre-politically correct era.) There are major differences and we should clearly delineate them because those differences are substantive and far-reaching. It is our duty to know those differences and know why we believe what we do.

A Brief Word to My PCA Colleagues
When I first came into the PCA in 1995 our Session at Grace studied the celebration of the Lord’s Supper together. It was an enlightening study, to say the least. One of the tools I used was a study by the Dutch Calvin scholar, W.F. Dankbaar entitled Communion Practices in the Century of the Reformation (Communiegebruiken in de eeuw der Reformatie). Dankbaar chronicled how each of the various Reformed pastors on the continent celebrated the Lord’s Supper with their respective congregations. There was a lot of overlap in the manner of celebration, but there were also differences. That led us to conclude that within the boundaries of Scripture, the Westminster Standards, and our Book of Church Order we were given some latitude, which is a good thing.
We then focused on the elements used in the Holy Meal. Our investigation of Scripture determined that wine was used in the celebration. When we moved from Scripture to the confessional statements we discovered the same thing: wine. Finally, the BCO also prescribed wine. Therefore, we settled in on wine. “But what about those who are allergic to wine or who are alcoholics?” some might ask. Well, when we fence the table of the Lord one of the logistical announcements is that a portion of the tray contains grape juice for those, who for whatever reason, cannot partake of wine, but the remainder is wine. Clearly, it is not a badge of Christianity that we don’t ever drink. At the first Christian Pentecost when Peter and the others were accused of being drunk, he reminded his accusers that it was only 9:00a.m. Note well: he didn’t say, “We don’t drink.” He simply pointed to the fact that it was too early.
But it does seem to me that to be in keeping with what our Lord, the Westminster divines, and the compilers of our BCO were teaching, the emphasis should be on celebrating the Lord’s Supper in the biblically prescribed manner. Could you ever celebrate the Lord’s Supper with a cracker and a soft drink? Well, if that were all you had, then maybe so. But if we have the means to celebrate it as Scripture tells us we should, why would we want to celebrate differently?

Church Discipline: Who Does That Anymore?
This aspect of what de Brès says about church discipline sounds like the Lamisil® commercial. Just as we Americans are intolerant of an athlete’s foot cure that takes longer than two weeks (we really are an instant gratification nation, aren’t we?), we are horrified at any attempt at or notion of church discipline. This is due, in part, (but only in part) to our lack of understanding of the nature and essence of the Church of Jesus Christ. Decades of garbage tend to mount up and block our view of the real deal. One of the unintentional outcomes of the mega-church movement was to aggravate the already rampant individualism in the United States and North America. The net result, therefore, was a joyful anonymity in the masses that met to be entertained each Sunday. The larger the gathering, the higher the degree of anonymity is.
Besides, with the pastor preaching his brand of “feel good” religion, few were ever being convinced of sin and an unbiblical lifestyle. Being one of the faceless attendees in the sea of the audience, both public and secret sins went undisclosed. Then as well as now, pastors shied away from the “s” word: sin. That word was not considered either chic or upbeat. Attendees tended to fall away rather quickly if pastors didn’t accommodate themselves to positive messages. Compromise with biblical truth became the order of the day. Pastors came to understand intuitively what attendees would tolerate and stand for and what would send them flying for the exits and seeking a place that was less offensive and more in keeping with what their consumer mentality demanded. Truth was definitely “out” and positive messages were “in.”
Since few of the “sermonettes” were directed to specific sins and the need to repent from them and be conformed more and more to the image of Christ, mega-church attendees could live like pagans—which many did—and get their spiritual fix on Sunday. That, and the rise of lawsuits in our litigiously obsessed culture, led a number of churches to abandon any attempt at even the simplest forms of church discipline such as a pastor telling an attendee that he or she shouldn’t live in a particular sin or sins. If pastors ever dared to venture into that territory they quickly encountered the “Butt Out” mentality. Therefore, they became spiritually gun shy and, wanting to keep the “numbers” up, turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the sins of their congregation. On the other hand, some didn’t even have a clue what those sins were because the pastors were too aloof and too important to spend time getting to know their congregants by name—which is a daunting task when you’re dealing with large numbers of people. Finally, since these pastors had long since decided not to preach on sin it was a foregone conclusion that they probably wouldn’t have to be dealing with any such circumstances.
One example will suffice here. I came to know about a blatant case of adultery and abandonment involving the wife of a friend of mine. They both attended an evangelical church in the area. I called the senior pastor there and was told by the church secretary that I could just tell her what I wanted. I made it very clear to her that I was not about to tell her, but rather that I would be put through to the senior pastor, who, by the way, had a serious problem going on in his congregation. Attila the Hun was put through. I told the man the problem and his only reply was, “What would you do in a case like this?” I was flabbergasted, but explained as calmly as I could the steps that I thought should be taken.
A few weeks later I saw my friend and he told me what had happened as a result of my call to his pastor. My friend’s wife showed up at church the following Sunday with her new live-in stud and my friend pointed her out to an Elder of the church. He said he would bring the matter to the attention of the pastor. Being good to his word, he conferred with the pastor I spoke to on the phone and came back to my friend with this bit of church discipline: Your wife looks pretty happy; why don’t you look for another church? I’ll bet she was happy! The new stud had just received his order of Enzyte® and she was all smiles. I wonder if his name were Bob?
What was dismal in the mega-church movement regarding church discipline is non-existent in the Emergent chitchat. With all the “pomo” emphasis on tolerance, relativism, the lack of meta-narratives, the positive uses of other religions, and the like, you would insult the Birkenstock label to even hint that a particular type of unbiblical behavior might be censurable. The Emergent deviants have some semblance of appreciation for “community,” which is the opposite of the mega-church, but if the “community” where to exhort you to live a more biblical life you’d be laughed out of Starbucks, the pub, or wherever else “worship” was being held that day.
So it all boils down to this: What is it that you truly are looking for in a church family? Once you’ve answered that question, take some time and answer this one as well: Is what you want what God wants? Are you looking for all the right things or are you looking for all the wrong things? How essential is it to you and for your family (if you have one) that you make the right choice? How crucial is your choice to your own spiritual growth and that of your loved ones? Did you choose your current local church out of convenience rather than because it was the truest church you could find after seriously seeking out and finding a place of true, biblical worship?The Second Helvetic (Swiss) Confession of 1566 chimes in with similar words to what the Belgic Confession summarizes when it says, “…we do not acknowledge every church to be the true Church which vaunts herself so to be; but we teach that to be the true Church indeed in which the marks and tokens of the true Church are to be found.”[2] Sunday is only a few days away. Where will you worship on this Lord’s Day?

[1] Joel Beeke & Sinclair Ferguson (eds.), Reformed Confession Harmonized, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), p. 192-193. Emphases mine.
[2] Ibid., 192.

The Church of Christ (VI)

So What Should We be Looking for?
Last time we listened to Article 28 of the Belgic Confession where we were told that there is no salvation outside of the true church and that “all men are in duty bound to join and unite themselves with it…”[1] Real Christians are to submit to the doctrine and discipline of the church and to bow their necks under the yoke of Christ.[2] Article 28 ends with these words, “Therefore all those who separate themselves from the same, or do not join themselves to it, act contrary to the ordinance of God.”[3]
That being the case, Article 28 begs the question: So what should I be looking for when I look for a local church? Or, If I’m in a local church that does not correspond to a true, biblical church, how do I begin investigating where I should be? To many, these are not important questions. As I’ve pointed out before, the modern, 21st century Christian is more concerned to have his or her needs—real or perceived—met. Precious little time and attention is given to whether the preaching is biblical, the liturgy is according to Scripture, or whether what is sung has any significant biblical content. Article 29 deals precisely with “The Marks of the True Church, and Wherein She Differs From the False Church.” It might appear to be an oddity that the B.C. even pauses to ponder the possibility of “the False Church.” What? We watch TV evangelicalism almost totally unreflectively and uncritically. Does it ever occur to us that the congregation down the street that our teenager dearly loves might be a false church? How should we go about determining this important matter? How much have we investigated what is being taught in the youth groups? What kinds of materials are being used? What is the theology behind the material?
“Oh, there’s no theology being taught,” you say. “Our congregation doesn’t believe in teaching doctrine or theology.”
Of course, that’s the biggest lie of all. Every congregation from 1960s hangover and druggie feel good congregation of Anne Lamott to the computer generated people listening to Bob Schuller with a southern accent, Joel Osteen, have a definite theology. Most are not willing to share it with you because they would prefer to play their cards close to their chests. Here is how it works in the practice: Intuitively they know that if they actually told you what they believe even the most muddleheaded minds in the congregation would probably strongly object. Therefore, they just give it to you in bits and pieces and know that you probably won’t ever connect the dots.
Is our only concern that our teenagers are happy or that our wife likes the feminized atmosphere where we attend?
Please don’t get me wrong: I am not opting for a macho-church. At the same time, I am also not suggesting that I’d rather have a church that caters to women and leaves the men on the periphery. It is true, however, that a number of churches today have never extricated themselves from the feminization of the church that took root in the Second Great Awakening with Finney and friends. There was a time when the Church looked like the Church and not some second-rate, vain attempt at a night club. The B.C. hearkens back to such a time in history. So at the risk of offending the megas and Emergents—and a lot of other people—I want to walk you through what Article 29 relates to us. Even if you reject what de Brès wrote, I’m asking you to reflect on what he says and ask yourself if it is biblical and if it makes sense. If it does, then I’m asking you to consider how you might put this into practice for yourself, and, if you have them, your wife/husband and children.

Diligence and Circumspection
Article 29 opens with these words: “We believe that we ought diligently and circumspectly to discern from the Word of God which is the true Church, since all sects which are in the world assume to themselves the name of the Church.”[4] In other words, the first thing required of any serious Christian is both diligence and circumspection in dealing with what Scripture teaches about God’s Church. This might take a little while. Diligence and circumspection are not instant commodities. They require…well, diligence and circumspection. To put it in school categories, they require that we do our biblical homework. There is a presupposition in this article of the confession that people are acquainted with the truths of the Bible. Keep in mind that this was written in 1561 during the time of the Reformation and those who were attending Protestant churches had only recently had the scriptures in the vernacular. De Brès’ thrust then is this: get a Bible, read it and study it diligently and circumspectly, and become familiar with its contents. Remember: the Roman Catholic Church kept its members ignorant of biblical truth and told them that Scripture was too hard for them. By keeping them unacquainted with Scripture the Roman Catholic Church could play all its superstitious and unbiblical games. The church folk in the Middle Ages had an excuse: they couldn’t read Latin and there were no Bibles available. Now things are quite different. Don’t you keep yourself in the dark!
The Reformers were not fearful of being compared to other churches. In fact, they both welcomed and encouraged interaction with their congregations and a searching of Scripture. Why was that? In part, it was due to the fact that the Reformers themselves delved deeply into Scripture and were convinced that anyone looking for a truly biblical Christian congregation would know the difference. In fact, the last sentence of Article 29 reads: “These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other.”[5] In the 21st century, however, our powers of biblical discernment are substantially diminished and, as often as not, if you question someone’s church choice they want to know what all the fuss is about.
It is precisely our study of the Bible that provides us with the necessary insights not only to ascertain how God wants to be worshiped (few today ask that question) and what a true, faithful congregation of Jesus Christ looks like. Again, in our society, it almost invariably boils down to preference and entertainment value. We might also add that what many modern Christians are seeking is a sermon that doesn’t threaten them, tell them that they need to change their lives and lifestyles to a holier standard, and that they are sinners in need of the only true Savior, Jesus Christ, but rather one that is nice. This way, men can remain bored out of their minds but thankful that their wives are blissfully happy and not bugging them about being real spiritual leaders in their homes. Besides, if men ever did decide to lead, it would not be in the saccharine way and in the dulcet tones that they hear in church on Sunday. More on this in a moment.

An Important Distinction
De Brès makes a necessary and important distinction at this point in Article 29. He reminds us that he’s not speaking about the hypocrites that make every covenant community a “mixed bag.” He comprehends the concept of the tares among the wheat; the difference between a “lamb” and a “goat.” There is, he insists, a distinction between being externally in the Church and yet not of it.[6] This is a necessary point to ponder, especially for the modern Christian. The Church of Christ is not a more or less loosely connected aggregate of people who just “happen” to be there. They are gathered around the Word of God by the Holy Spirit and given the mandate—in the midst of their diversity—to be one in Christ. It will not do merely to be “pasted” on to a local congregation in a Nestorian-like fashion. Christians are, rather, to be active and integral parts of “the body and communion.”
Here is de Brès’ more complete definition: “but we say that the body and communion of the true Church must be distinguished from all sects who call themselves the Church.” He is making a plea for Christian discernment to be able to judge what is true, right, and pleasing to God and what is a mere counterfeit. Not to possess these faculties of discernment might very well spell disaster for you and your family. And yet, this is one of the begetting sins of the modern Church. Few are concerned with scriptural doctrine and its application; other matters occupy them. There are even some pastors who openly ridicule biblical doctrine and tell their congregants that they don’t need to bother and/or busy themselves with doctrine because it is a waste of time and only causes dissension.
Is it any wonder that many modern Christians have a spiritual I.Q. that is barely in the single digits? It’s shameful when a disproportionately large percentage of Christians cannot tell you what the Ten Commandments are, cannot tell you where to find them, and cannot tell you about foundational, fundamental doctrines of the faith. What is all the more disconcerting is that these folks wear their blatant lack of knowledge and discernment as a badge of honor and look down their noses at other Christians who refuse to join their ranks. The call here is, however, for a biblically discerning mind and heart. These remarks must be taken seriously if we do not want to leave ourselves and those God has entrusted into our care in the lurch.

The Marks of the Church
In order to facilitate our search, de Brès provides us—albeit in summary and outline form—with a list of the "marks" or "notes" of the Church so that we can get a handle on what we’re looking for. He writes, “The marks by which the true Church is known are these: if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin; in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself.”[7]
The wording here is both simple and yet highly profound. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to get a good flavor of what Christians ought to be looking for in a local congregation. Of course, the caveat is that the Christian must be armed with adequate discernment and Christian maturity to be able to check on the purity of the doctrine being preached. That is to say, he ought to have a “Berean” attitude, i.e., “examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so” (cf. Acts 17:11). In order to perform such a necessary procedure the modern Christian is going to have to put away his or her copy of The Message and trade it in for a good translation of the Word of God. Then they are going to have to resolve to make a detailed, systematic, and regular study of the Bible coupled with prayer for illumination.
From that study—always being and becoming a student of the Word—our skills of discernment are to be trained and honed so that we discover what the will of God is, “what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom. 12:2). Allow me a word to the women here. If your husband begins such an undertaking, let him proceed; don’t hinder him. If you want him to lead then let him lead and be prepared to follow his leadership. I mention this because there is such a tendency in our overly feminized churches for women to “run the show” from behind the scenes. I have known wives who have actually given their husbands leather bound copies of The Message. That is not a good idea. The Message is a paraphrase and a bad one at that. I have also known women who clamored for their husbands to start acting like spiritual leaders, which is a good thing. Once their husbands started down that path, however, and started looking for a new and better, more biblical church the wife suddenly realized that she was no longer calling the shots and she dug in her heels. Once hubby decided to attend a local church where there was more meat and less fluff, where there was more of a balance between masculinity and femininity, the wife insisted on leaving and getting back to her comfort zone.
Wives, if this is you—or close to you—don’t carp that your husband won’t lead you. Just be honest and say that your husband tried to lead you but that you let him know in no uncertain terms who really wears the pants in your family. Here is the cardinal point: Every Christian needs the pure preaching of the Word of God in his or her life. This is the means of grace God has instituted for the instruction and encouragement of his people. So in your search for a church home, this question must be foremost in your thoughts and minds: Does this church truly preach the Bible? There is a lot today that passes for preaching that isn’t. Preaching is not a fireside chat; it is not an informal discussion; and it is not a mode of entertainment and sunshine peddling. That is not the meaning of the New Testament word for preaching. It is proclamation with a particular content. It is not a string of anecdotes, a Christian variation on the latest political or pop-psychology book or TV show, or the fad du jour. It is the preaching of Christ and God’s will for our lives. This is the first thing we must look for. Now go out and do it.

[1] Joel Beeke & Sinclair Ferguson (eds.), Reformed Confessions Harmonized, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), p. 190.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid., 192.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., 193. Italics mine.
[6] Cf. Matt. 13:22-25; 2 Tim. 2:16-20; Rom. 9:6.
[7] Beeke & Ferguson, RCH, 192-193.

The Church of Christ (V)

A Weighty Responsibility
We continue this week in our study of the nature of the Church of Jesus Christ by turning our attention back to the Belgic Confession (1561). Article 28 of this confession is entitled, “Every One is Bound to Join Himself to the True Church.”[1] Following a description of the nature of the universal Church of Christ, Guido de Brès, the author, now moves us in a related but slightly different direction: our obligation as Christians to ensure that the local congregation we join is the most biblical one we can find. Note that during the Reformation it was not enough to be a mere attendee, but Christians were expected to join—become a member of—a local church.
De Brès’ opening salvo cuts to the heart of the matter and contains a number of key elements that we need to examine. First, the Church is defined as the assembly of those who are saved. Surely we need to minister to the lost—that’s biblical—but simultaneously we ought to keep in mind that the essence of the Church is comprised of those who are saved. Here’s the first clause of this article: “We believe, since this holy congregation is an assembly of those who are saved, and out of it there is no salvation, that no person of whatsoever state or condition he may be, ought to withdraw himself to live in a separate state from it.”
Some of this might sound shocking and some of it might actually be shocking to us. Some respond to the words “and out of it there is no salvation” as sounding terribly Roman Catholic. In actuality, however, nothing could be farther from the truth. It is true that Rome taught that outside the Roman Catholic church there was no salvation possible, but that is quite different from saying that outside of the true Church of Jesus Christ there is no salvation.
This is a clear warning to those today who find their “church” in a para-church organization or even in a good, effective Sunday school teacher. A para-church organization—as the prefix “para” makes plain—is not the Church. Some donate to good para-church organizations, but those organizations don’t baptize or administer the sacraments, or where necessary, exercise church discipline. Nonetheless, some today insist that a given para-church entity is a substitute for them going to a local congregation. Dead wrong. Such an attitude manifests how far the modern Church has devolved.
I spoke to a man not long ago who had not had the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper for over five years. His Sunday school teacher, he explained, was a “gifted” teacher so Sunday school was his “church.” Dead wrong again, but as often as not, this type of muddleheaded thinking prevails in the 21st century.
John Calvin calls chapter one of Book four of the Institutes: “The True Church with which as Mother of All the Godly We must keep Unity.”[2] In his opening remarks, Calvin informs us that what he is about to say is nothing more than an extension of what he taught in Book Three on faith and salvation.[3] He states, “As explained in the previous book, it is by the faith in the gospel that Christ becomes ours and we are made partakers of the salvation and eternal blessedness brought by him.”[4] Moreover, because of our “ignorance and sloth…we need outward helps to beget and increase faith within us, and advance to its goal.” Therefore, “God has also added these aids that he may provide for our weakness. And in order that the preaching of the gospel might flourish, he deposited this treasure in the church.”[5] In other words, the focus of the true church is upon the preaching of the Word of God.
Calvin continues and articulates that the Church bears a particular stamp. It is Christ’s Church “into whose bosom God is pleased to gather his sons, not only that they may be nourished by her help and ministry as long as they are infants and children, but also that they may be guided by her motherly care until they mature and at last reach the goal of faith.”[6] Stating his case more strongly and giving a more full-orbed description of the Church as “mother,” Calvin says that it is necessary that each believer be a member of Christ’s Church. “For there is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give us birth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly, unless she keep us under her care and guidance until, putting off mortal flesh, we become like the angels.”[7]
My question to you at this point is simply this: Does any of this describe the lengths to which you went in choosing a church home for yourself or—if you have one—your family? What motivated you to attend where you are currently attending? If you are a male of the species, who made the choice to go to the church you now attend? I ask that because the modern Church bears all the marks of feminization as much as if not more than our society does.[8] Are we aware today that no person—no matter who they are and how much money they have—ought to withdraw him- or herself from a true church of Jesus Christ and live in a separate state from it?
Second, de Brès opined that regarding the Church of Jesus Christ, “all men are in duty bound to join and unite themselves with it.” There is an obligation/duty enjoined upon true Christians to join a true congregation of our Lord and unite themselves with it. In other words, we are not merely to join and then disappear into the ranks; as true believers we are to “unite” with that local body. We are not to remain aloof or sit on the sidelines, but rather we are to become living and active members, sharing our spiritual gifts and sharing in and nourishing the spiritual gifts of others.
Third, by so living, we are to maintain “the unity of the Church.” This unity, which is precious to congregational life, recognizes that being a member of a local congregation goes hand in glove with being united with Christ in that spiritual, mystical union by which I am conformed more and more to his image.
Fourth, we are reminded that when true Christians join a true church of Jesus Christ that they are then to submit “themselves to the doctrine and the discipline thereof.” This no doubt comes as a huge surprise to many modern, individualistically minded church-goers. It’s a surprise that anyone would even mention the fact that biblical doctrine is important to our church choice. To far too many, the reality of biblical doctrine is one of the farthest things from his mind when modern man is contemplating where he (and his family) might worship. When you couple this with the fact that some pastors openly denigrate doctrine, telling their congregants that they not only don’t need it, but that it’s actually detrimental to their Christian walk to get entangled in doctrine’s pernicious web, is it any wonder that many modern Christians are all but totally bereft of scriptural truth?
As if the concept of doctrine were not surprising enough, however, the concept of church discipline sounds like de Brès was from the planet Zork. There is no such thing as church discipline in the mega-church movement—they don’t even know who their attendees are. Can you imagine Rick Warren or Bill Hybels announcing to their audiences that they were preparing to initiate excommunication on the fornicators and those committing adultery in their midst? And the closest thing to discipline I’ve heard about from the Emergent Tribe is some guy calling Mark Driscoll to tell him that he feels badly because he watched porn and Driscoll telling him not to do it anymore. No, the modern Christian has precious little knowledge of biblical doctrine and none regarding discipline. The stock reply from the 21st century Christian to the possibility of church discipline would be “It’s none of your business, so butt out!” or “You’ll get a call from my lawyer!” Is there any wonder that the level of holiness in the modern Church is so low?
Fifth, when seeking out, finding, and joining a church, we are to be willing and prepared to bow our “necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ.” What does de Brès mean by that? Quite simply it implies that we are to submit to the Word of God. It means that we will comply with what is found in Scripture even if or especially if it cuts against the grain of what we want or expect. We must, therefore, understand that there is a difference between what I might encounter in my secular job and what God prescribes for Christ’s Church.
If we would but pay attention to this truth the modern Church could benefit greatly from its instruction. For example, this would entail that a CEO or CFO might not be at all suited to serve as an Elder in Christ’s Church. The biblical instruction is not that the congregation looks for a “high roller” or “power player,” but rather a biblically qualified man. This also has great advantages for women as well. As they comprehend that even though they might be on a “career track” in the world—that’s allowed, but certainly not the biblical prescription—that there is not a one-to-one correlation between the world and the Church, so that God forbids them to be Elders.
Positively, bowing our necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ entails being conformed to his image. It also means that the Word of God has pre-eminence in our lives.
Finally, once we have sought out, found, and attached ourselves to this congregation, we are not to sit back and be entertained. There is something required of us. Here is how the B.C. explains that obligation: we Christians are to serve for the edification of our their fellow-brothers and –sisters in Christ, “according to the talents God has given them.” In short, we are duty bound to locate this true church and then to become living, active members of it. It is not enough to be a member and to stay out on the fringes of church life. Since the Holy Spirit has given us spiritual gifts, we are to employ them for the good of the whole. You cannot worship God at home (The Church of the Innerspring) or somewhere out in nature (The Church of the Canyon), but should maintain constant attendance with your local (true) church. In the subsequence subsequent article, we will be informed about how to judge a true church from a false one, but for the present the B.C. is concerned that we understand that we are to use our gifts and to receive the benefits of the spiritual gifts of the others in the congregation.
It is easy to see that this description is quite different from that of a para-church organization, even though biblical para-church organizations can serve a very good function. I’ll mention just one such organization to give you a flavor of what I mean. Ligonier Ministries is a para-church organization that has done enormous, incalculable good in the Christian community. There are numerous very helpful books on a wide variety of Christian topics to aid the Christian in his or her walk of faith. They sponsor a number of conferences that provide solid biblical teaching. Their monthly periodical, Tabletalk, contains highly helpful articles as well as devotions for each respective month. In short—and I’ve only scratched the surface of what Ligonier Ministries provides—, Christians can make good use of their material. But what L.M. will emphasize to you repeatedly is that they are not the Church. This is an essential distinction to keep in mind as you seek out, find, and attach yourself to the purest biblical congregation you can find.
I understand that this might very well sound very unusual to the modern Christian. Yet, it’s the old dead guys, like de Brès, who were in the midst of the battle, who thought through the issues clearly, and who can still guide us today. You really don’t have to revise the confessional statements to have them be relevant. There are some voices today who cry out that our confessions are badly outdated and need to be revised to bring them into line with the “findings” of the Federal Vision, the (so-called) New Perspective on Paul, and the place of women in modern society. If we started down this road, we would eventually end up with a monstrosity that was ungainly, unreadable, un-learnable, and subject to every whim and fad that came along.Isn’t it biblically true that there really is nothing new under the sun; that what is being done has been done before? Those today who are constantly insisting on revision of the confessions would, in all likelihood, be incensed if someone like, say, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton said that the Constitution is a “living document” and needs to be under constant alteration. The Constitution is a fallible document that still serves us very well in America. Analogously, our Presbyterian and Reformed documents are also fallible, but have both stemmed the tide of error and heresy as well as positively edified God’s people throughout the ages. Why don’t the detractors to the Constitution and the Presbyterian and Reformed confessions simply go elsewhere and leave us to appreciate the dead guys?

[1] This is the heading given by Joel Beeke & Sinclair Ferguson (eds.), Reformed Confessions Harmonized, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), p. 190. Others use “Of the Communion of the Saints in the True Church,” “Everyone’s Duty to Join the Church,” or words to that effect.
[2] John T. McNeill & Ford Lewis Battles (eds.), Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), p. 1011.
[3] An example of connecting the doctrine of salvation with the doctrine of the Church is also found in the writings of the Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck. He opens his section on the doctrine of the Church with these words, “But this benefit of glorification is one which we cannot yet discuss, because we have first to pay some attention to the way in which, or the route along which, Christ brings the benefits of calling and regeneration, faith and repentance, justification and adoption as children, renewal and sanctification, into being in His believers on earth, and sustains and reinforces them. We have already noted that He grants all those benefits by means of His Word and His Spirit, but have still to see that He also grants them also only in the fellowship which binds all the believers together…. The believer is born from above, out of God, but he receives the new life only in the fellowship of the covenant of grace of which Christ is the Head and at the same time the content…. From the first moment of his regeneration, therefore, the believer is, apart from his will and apart from his own doing, incorporated in a great whole, taken up into a rich fellowship; he is member of a new nation and citizen of a spiritual kingdom whose king is glorious in the multitude of his subjects (Prov. 14:28).” (Our Reasonable Faith, [Henry Zylstra (trans.)], [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1956), p. 514.)
[4] Inst., 1011.
[5] Ibid., 1011-1012.
[6] Ibid., 1012.
[7] Ibid., 4.1.4, 1016.
[8] See Mark Noll, America’s God, From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002); Ann Douglas, The Feminization of American Culture, (NY: The Noonday Press, 19982); Mary Kassian, The Feminist Gospel, (Wheaton: Crossway, 1992); & Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth, Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity, (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004), especially chapter 12, “How Women Started the Culture War.”

The Church of Christ (IV)

There’s Trouble in the Blog-o-Sphere!
Our family recently returned from a visit to Toronto, Canada where we traveled to see our two married sons, two wonderful daughters-in-law, and our eleven grandchildren. It was an excellent visit and immediately upon my return I was required to take up my labors as Stated Clerk of South Coast Presbytery, which meant that there wasn’t going to be an Ethos for a couple of weeks. Now we’re back and things are back to normal—at least as normal as they ever get in my life.
One thing is clear to me these days: we are in dire need of discoursing about the nature and essence of the Church of Jesus Christ. For those who are interested in what is being taught by Federal Vision and New Perspective on Paul adherents, allow me to direct your attention to this link (http://deregnochristi.org/) and you can read for yourself. The dialogue taking place there convinces me more than ever that the PCA was correct and justified in its recent rejection of the Federal Vision, the New Perspective on Paul, and the Auburn Avenue theologies. In passing, I would note that the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the United Reformed Church have also done the same. This ought to tell us something, namely that each one of these conservative churches has deemed the FV and NPP to be of such a pernicious and dangerous nature that it needed to be openly, publicly rejected.
Another blog that has been dealing with the Emergent Conversation/Church is Phil Johnson. (http://teampyro.blogspot.com/) He has written an interesting article entitled, “Different Gospels.” Once you find it you can click on the second set of red letters that will take you to YouTube to a CNN debate between John MacArthur and Emergent Doug Pagitt (Is Yoga Biblical?). Both of these examples are typical of the mass confusion that is rampant in what used to be called the Christian Church. I won’t even direct you to the mindless comments posted on YouTube about the debate. It is instructive to watch the whole ten minutes because it exposes Pagitt’s utter hypocrisy about being a loving person (can you say: iron fist in a velvet glove?) and his disdain for the Word of God—and this from a man who calls himself a pastor.
From my PCA perspective, ByFaith magazine has allowed two PCA pastors from Central Florida Presbytery to write positive articles about the Emergent Church in general and people like Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, and Donald Miller in particular. In fact, the articles suggested that those in the Emergent Church are funny, but from my perspective it is substantially more dangerous and unbiblical than it is funny. To date, I have unfortunately seen nothing in ByFaith warning PCA members about the pernicious and, at times, heretical theology in the Emergent Conversation, although a number of us are quite disturbed about the EC and well acquainted with its theology. What makes this all the more bitter is that ByFaith continues to ask for money from PCA congregations, while to this point only select authors write for what is—ostensibly—a denominational magazine.
For these and other reasons I am pleased that we are discussing the nature and essence of Christ’s Church. By way of reminder, I would point out that we have examined Article 27 of the Belgic Confession and Q/A 54 of Lord’s Day 21 of the Heidelberg Catechism. In this issue we turn our attention to Chapter 25 of the Westminster Confession of Faith. This chapter of the Confession consists of six paragraphs or sections and is followed by a chapter on the communion of the saints (communio sanctorum). Before we discuss the contents of chapter 25, I want to look briefly as some salient points made by the Westminster divines in chapter 26.
First, it should be noted that the communion of saints is not described as a cultural phenomenon, but rather in terms of Christians being really and truly united to Jesus Christ by faith. In addition, they are also united to one another in love. This notion of knowing ourselves to be united to one another in the true faith is a matter that the modern mega-church has completely overlooked and the Emergent Conversation has virtually completing misunderstood. In the Emergent search for “community,” they have jettisoned biblical doctrine and the creeds and have run headlong into a rampant individualism.
With all the hoopla among the Emergent tribe about “community,” one has to wonder what they find objectionable about what the Westminster Confession of Faith (Choke! Gag! Cough! Traditionalism! Old dead guys!) says about true Christian community. Brian McLaren and others want to stop with the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds—one can only wonder why—when the Westminster says substantially more about community than either one of the earlier creeds. In 26.2, for example, we read this: “Saints by profession are bound to maintain a holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification; as also in relieving each other in outward things, according to their several abilities and necessities. Which community, as God offers opportunity, is to be extended unto all those, who in every place, call upon the Name of the Lord Jesus.”
In fact, one might ask the same question about PCA congregations who are loathe to put the name “Presbyterian” on their marquis. If your title is a “community” church, does the fellowship correspond to 26.2, which is nothing more than a summary of Scripture or if you’re like so many today who have 50% non-Christians in the congregation—yeah, right—are we striving to move them from being happy, ignorant pagans to become a true Christian community?

Of the Church
I’m going to have to skate lightly over what the divines of Westminster teach us here, but I do want us to get a good general impression of what they teach because it is so necessary. In addition, I will not be able to give all of the scriptural texts that they use to support their statements, but you can easily find them by going on line.

Election and Submission
First, in 25.1 we are apprised of the fact that the universal (or catholic) Church consists of the whole number of the elect. The elect are gathered into one under Christ as the Head. Therefore, we are immediately informed that the nature and essence of the Church is not what man makes it, but that she submits to Christ in all things. This comment alone is a severe indictment of the mega-church, the Emergent nonsense, as well as a great deal of the “community” church concept. Why do I include the last group? Simply because the notion of God’s sovereign election narrows the field substantially. If PCA pastors believe what they say they believe, are they informing their congregations of this truth? I have spoken to people that have been in PCA church plants for years and have never heard anything remotely close to what the Standards teach—and sometimes not even what the scriptures really teach. They are, however, aware that they should “engage” the culture. Now if they can ever figure out what that means, they’ll be ready to go.

Professing True Religion
Second, 25.2 proceeds to define the universal Church for us. It is not confined to one nation, as before under the law, but now “consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and their children.” Notice how the creed specifies what many today do not want to assert. There is not a multiplicity of true religions, but rather there is only one. True believers and their children are included in the universal Church. Community churches that are PCA typically strive to be—in some sense—inter-denominational, not wanting to “spill the beans” about what it means to be Presbyterian. One has to wonder if it really matters to some of these folk. If it doesn’t matter, then why are they PCA; if it does matter, then why don’t they lay their cards on the table? When do you tell the garden-variety evangelical that the children are part of the covenant community?

Gathering and Perfecting the Saints
Third, how do the divines describe the purpose of the catholic Church? In 25.3 we are reminded that the visible Church has been given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints (Emphases mine). The last of the red hot Puritans seemed to think that we really didn’t need liturgical dance and slice of life drama to convey the gospel. In Ephesians 3:8ff., Paul informs the Church that God extended his grace to him “to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God…” In other words, the reason why Paul was called was to preach the gospel.
How can we best perfect God’s people? The short answer is that we teach them to exercise themselves in the ordinary means of grace that God has provided for the Church. We instruct them on how they are to have a consistent prayer life and that they are to read their Bibles daily. Note that the Westminster theologians spoke of two facets that are inseparable. They are to be gathered, but the Church’s task does not end there. We are then called upon to perfect them in the Word of God. Today many are concerned about the lost and that is a proper, biblical concept. Where it derails is when you care about the lost to the detriment and at the expense of the saved. We present both the lost and the saved with the Word of God and call upon them to move on towards increasing holiness and conformity to the image of Christ.

That the Gospel is Taught and Embraced
Fourth, this thought is carried forward in 25.4, where we are told that no local congregation is perfect, but rather that they are all “more or less pure.” That being the case, is there anything that can be done to insure that your local congregation is more pure rather than less pure? According to the divines the answer is Yes. What makes the congregation more pure? Their purity is “according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.” These red hot guys pound the same drum all the time. What is required is that the Gospel is both taught and embraced. Moreover, chapter 25 aims at the proper administration of God’s ordained ordinances for his Church as well as the proper performance of public worship.

Finding a Biblical Church
Fifth, the divines were realists and understood that “The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error” (25.5). This statement is the corporate version of what the Heidelberg Catechism (Lord’s Day 44, Q/A 114) teaches about individual sanctification.[1] In short, the Reformed heritage/tradition has been both humble and realistic about the Church and her members. This fifth section of chapter 25 alerts us that some Churches “have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.” In the next issue, Lord willing, we shall turn our attention to Article 28 of the Belgic Confession that reminds us that every Christian is duty bound to seek out, find, and attach himself or herself to the most pure expression of Christ’s Church he can find.
This is, no doubt, a novel concept for many modern Christians. As often as not, they choose to attend or join a congregation for a wide variety of reasons including insignificant facets such as the music, the youth program, the size of the congregation, wanting to remain anonymous, not wanting to get involved, and other specious excuses.
Before we move on to the final point raised in chapter 25 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, we need to pause for a moment and listen to the conclusion of section five. The Church of Christ will always exist on earth; that much we know. It is the final words of this section that point us to the truth that Christ’s Church will abide, but the underlying thought is that the purer churches will “worship God according to his will.” This truth is huge and it forms one of the lynchpins of “doing church.” Far too often scant time is spent asking the question: How does God want us to worship him? In fact, given the “strategies” of a number of mega-churches and Emergent tribes it seems like that question is the last one to be considered, if it’s considered at all.
We conduct surveys and ask non-Christians or nominal Christians what they want and go from there. If they want movies, we give them movie clips; if they want hipper music, we give them praise bands and sound bytes from pagan music; if they want Starbucks, we give them Starbucks; if they want drama, we give them drama; if they want bagels during the service, we gladly give them bagels during the service; if they want a little cussing during the service just to show that the pastor is a transparent, genuine dude, we give them mature themes and language; if they want liturgical dance, we give them liturgical dance; if they want women having more of a say in what happens in the service and serving in more leadership positions, we give them that. We give them all that and more, but we rarely stop to ask the crucial, essential, and central question: How does God want to be worshiped? Do we ever ponder what he has already so clearly prescribed? Frequently, modern churches do not. Their approach is pure American Pragmatism: If it works, do it. However, we have not yet adequately answered the question of what the word “works” actually means, so we have to keep coming up with new, unique, innovative, and creative forms of manmade worship, not for God, but to keep the troops from marching off to a hipper, more cutting edge congregation down the road.

Christ Alone
This chapter concludes (25.6) with a healthy spiritual reminder that there is no other Head of the Church than the Lord Jesus Christ. Recall that Q/A 54 of the Heidelberg Catechism called upon us to confess that it is Christ who gathers, defends, and preserves to himself a Church chosen to everlasting life. That ought to be sufficient. It is Christ’s Church, therefore he wants us to worship him in the manner that he prescribes. Let me illustrate what I mean by a story—the Emergents ought to love this—that my son told me recently. A woman presented herself to her pastor for counseling. She pointed out to the pastor that she was a highly educated and very intelligent woman. The pastor took that under advisement. He asked her, in fact, what her I.Q. was and she responded that it was almost 170. The pastor was impressed, but pressed on to ask her what she thought the I.Q. of an idiot might be. She ventured a number in the low 40s or 50s.
“Ah,” said the pastor. “What do you think the I.Q. of God is?”
The woman was taken aback by the question and looked at him quizzically. “I, I don’t know,” the highly educated and very intelligent woman stammered.
“Would you be comfortable with giving God an I.Q.—just for the sake of argument, of course—of 1,000,000?” he asked.
“Well, sure!” she shot back.
“Good,” he said, “because I’m going to be talking to you about what the Bible says and it seems like to me that your I.Q. is closer to the idiot’s than it is to God’s.”
With the necessary changes being made, I would suggest that all of us are in the place of the highly educated and very intelligent woman: closer to the idiot’s I.Q. than to the Lord’s. Why then, do we insist on doing worship or doing church our way instead of his?

[1] But can those converted to God keep these commandments perfectly? No. In this life even the holiest have only a small beginning of this obedience.

The Church of Christ (III)

The Catholic Christian Church (II)
In the last issue, we began a kind of reconnaissance of what the Reformed world has historically taught regarding the nature and character of the Church of Jesus Christ. Our initial foray took us to the Belgic Confession (1561), which was written by Guido de Brès. We took this approach primarily because there is so much confusion today about the Church and few even ask anymore about the nature of a true congregation of Jesus Christ.
More often than not a number of pragmatic reasons are put forward when it comes to choosing a local congregation for the family or individual. We obviously don’t have the time to allow every reason to pass in review, but allow me a few moments to give you some that I have heard.
Topping the list is almost invariably the statement that the music is great. Probing deeper the usual discoveries are made. The music is loud, contemporary, upbeat, and cutting edge. Hands are raised and people sway back and forth with their eyes closed. I made a startling discovery at the Chattanooga, TN PCA General Assembly. You might not know this, so it is worth passing along for your spiritual edification. Here’s what I discovered: the Holy Spirit doesn’t move or work when you sing psalms. It is patently true. I was once a skeptic myself, but the GA that year removed all shadow of a doubt. I know empirically.
Prior to our worship service one evening we sang a number of praise songs. Actually, the others sang, because I simply didn’t know them and I couldn’t keep up with when we were going to sing the same verse again—for the eighth time—and when we were going to sing the bridge, and…well, you get the point. As some of the people sang, eyes were closed, hands were raised, and there was a lot of swaying back and forth in near ecstasy. Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not put off or out if people do that. But here’s where my discovery came—ich ben aufgeklärt!—when we finally got around to singing a psalm all the eyes opened, the hands when down, and the swaying ceased. I suppose that people thought that the Holy Spirit was watching and didn’t like what looked like dancing. After all, this was a gathering of Presbos. Therefore, singing praise songs is better than singing hymns and psalms because the Holy Spirit doesn’t particularly care for that type of traditionalism—the dead faith of the living.
Second, the teenagers love the youth program. This comes from the “programs oriented” circles. Our youngest son, who is now an Orange County Deputy Sheriff, got drafted by the New York Yankees out of high school. Prior to the draft that year he played on three pro scout teams. I got to watch a lot of baseball and see a lot of the same faces over an extended period of time. But here’s the point I want to make. At one of those games I was talking to a dad about his son and he was telling me that his son really liked the youth program at the church they were attending—not members of; just attending—so I asked him what his son was learning about God. He glazed over a little and replied, “No, Ron, he really likes it a lot.” I responded that I understood but still wondered what he was learning about God. Finally, the father admitted to me that he didn’t have a clue. The kids or youth leader get slimed, the music is fun, the skits are fun, they watch fun videos like Jesus Rocks, therefore it’s all good.
A third and—in some circles—a growing reason is that certain churches are chosen and others are bypassed because the wife refuses to attend. A lot of the arguing goes on behind closed doors, but it’s there and it’s real. The man, wanting to avoid a conflict every Sunday, caves. This approach is truly an assault on male spiritual leadership in the home. Some women want their husbands to be spiritual leaders, but refuse to follow his lead in attending and joining a congregation that will truly equip him for his task.
In over twenty-five years that I’ve been a pastor I’ve discovered that the primary struggles in my life and in the life of the “lambs” that God has entrusted to me and my fellow-Elders are spiritual in nature. Things like reading the Bible daily on a consistent basis, a vital and heartfelt prayer life, praying with my wife, and leading family devotions top the list of areas where I’m not as consistent as I ought to be. I find this to be true of church members as well. Granted, some are better than others, but it’s a struggle. So why wouldn’t a wife want her husband to choose a local congregation where he’s going to be encouraged to lead at home and in the church and, simultaneously, be equipped to do the same?
Yet, when the wife is either under the influence of so-called Christian feminism or has preconceived notions of what kinds of sermons she expects the pastor to preach there can be trouble. This is not to suggest that the pastor gets it right all the time, but rather is simply meant to point out that if the pastor is truly shepherding and loving the flock that has been entrusted into his care that he will give the congregation what it needs and not necessarily what it wants to hear.

The Heidelberg Catechism on the Universal/Catholic Church
In the Heidelberg Catechism (Lord’s Day 21, Q/As 54-56) the authors summarize what Scripture teaches about the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. They introduce the subject by asking us what we believe concerning this aspect of the Apostles’ Creed, since that is what they are expositing at this point in the catechism.
How do they answer that question? How would you answer it? If you take the time to study their answer, you’ll find that it is replete with Scripture and scriptural references. Here’s their answer: “That the Son of God, out of the whole human race, from the beginning to the end of the world, gathers, defends, and preserves for himself, by his Spirit and Word, in the unity of the true faith, a Church chosen to everlasting life; and that I am, and forever shall remain, a living member of it.”[1]
The catholicity of Christ’s Church extends to the whole human race and this Church has been in existence since the beginning of the world and will endure to world’s end. The Son of God gathers, defends, and preserves this Church for himself. It is his Church and those who are under-shepherds would do very well to keep this in mind. It is not about them or their little empires or their aspirations to be a “successful” pastor; the successful pastor is the one who faithfully and clearly preaches God’s Word week in and week out, who visits his people in their homes, instructs them in the Bible and the catechisms, visits the shut-ins and those in the hospitals, and who manages and administers his meetings well.
What are the means of Christ’s Church-gathering work? The authors answer that the entire process of gathering, defending, and preserving his Church is by the Holy Spirit and the Word. This is the wording that is found in a number of Reformed confessions on a regular basis, albeit we usually find it expressed as Word and Spirit. The point here is that in the Presbyterian and Reformed tradition (the living faith of the dead) our reliance is on the Son of God gathering, defending, and preserving his Church by the Holy Spirit who inspired the scriptures and by the scriptures themselves.
Even though election is mentioned by the phrase “a Church chosen to everlasting life” the authors also tie in the important concept of the “communion of the saints” when we’re instructed that we are to be living members of Christ’s Church. Therefore, Ursinus reminds us in his commentary on the catechism he helped write that the nature or essence of the Church is “a gathering of people, who receive and confess the true doctrine of God and of his worship, the proper administration of the sacraments he instituted, and obeying his worship.”[2]
In his commentary, Ursinus follows other Reformers in insisting that there is no salvation outside of the true Church and supports his position from Scripture.[3] John Calvin, for example, introduces his explanation of the doctrine of the Church in this fashion: “I shall start, then, with the church, into whose bosom God is pleased to gather his sons, not only that they may be nourished by her help and ministry as long as they are infants and children, but also that they may be guided by her motherly care until they mature and at last reach the goal of faith” and “…for those to whom he is Father the church may also be Mother.”[4]
What is important to note is that he sees the place where the preaching of the Word of God flourishes is in the Church.[5] In another place, Calvin supplies us with what God has enjoined upon pastors: the “preaching of the heavenly doctrine.”[6] Or, “…the church is built up solely by outward preaching.”[7]
The notion of the communion of the saints is worked out more fully in Q/A 55 when we are asked to explain what we understand by our confession in the Apostles’ Creed regarding the communion of the saints. It is necessary for us to reflect upon that crucial question in the modern Church. What is essential to keep in mind is that our answer must be connected to what we just confessed in Q/A 54. Holding on to the truths we acknowledged there, we’re now going to take another step forward.
Woven into the fabric of the answer is a confession of our union with Christ. The technical term is the unio mystica or insertio. In terms that you and I understand, it’s conformity to Christ’s image or—as we saw last time—being “engrafted” into Christ by faith. Those who are being conformed to Christ’s image are “partakers of him and all his treasures and gifts.” This is the clear implication and extent of the union of the believer with the risen and ascended Christ.
The second aspect of the answer directs our attention to the practical applications and outworkings of being a living member of Christ’s Church; of being a part of the communion of saints. Part of being a member of a local congregation is employing our gifts readily and cheerfully for the advantage and salvation of other members. In other words, we are to show and know ourselves to be members of a covenant community and that requires our active participation in that body of believers.
One of the many areas where the modern Church is highly deficient is precisely here. Decades of superficial and tawdry entertainment have led many church consumers to believe that they are there to be catered to and entertained. If the entertainment factor stalls, then there is another consumer-driven congregation down the road who is willing to make the consumer happy and not speak about living a cross-driven life. A true body of Christ will be one in which the spiritual gifts will be discovered and then used for the well being and salvation of the others. How many modern consumers, who are eager to get out of the building after the service for a tee time or a tea time, are really concerned about the salvation of the other consumers? It’s possible in some churches never to have to speak to another person and to remain virtually totally anonymous.
The Heidelberg’s third question regarding the Church concentrates on the forgiveness of sins. As the Son of God gathers his Church around the Word of God by the Holy Spirit there should be an acknowledgment of our sins as well as the celebration of the forgiveness we receive both individually and as a body of Christ. It is within the context of this answer that the authors employ the reminders that we are forgiven “for the sake of Christ’s satisfaction” and being granted “the righteousness of Christ.”
As we move forward, it is evident from the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and from Calvin’s Institutes and other writings and commentaries that there is an inseparable relationship between Christ’s Church and the preaching of the Word of God. It really could not be much easier, so why do we try to make it so hard? What I keep hearing is that if we are to engage the culture effectively there must be the requisite contextualization. The Bible must be placed within a particular cultural context and be made to fit the notions and concepts of that particular culture. In terms of America, we must somehow make the scriptures palatable to the postmodern cultured despiser of the Christian faith.
We do not have the time to go into the whole (to my mind somewhat overrated, over-used, and often misunderstood) idea of contextualization, but Dick Gaffin has made some noteworthy comments in a recent article that are worthy of our consideration. In the first place, he states that “Scripture, ultimately, is not in need of contextualization but provides its own.”[8] Gaffin cites the book of Hebrews as a case in point. He reminds us that it was “Originally addressed, as were the other New Testament documents, to readers in a particular time and place, under specific social, economic, and political conditions” but it nevertheless “reveals remarkably little about these cultural factors.”[9] Gaffin has just given us a much-needed correction to the entire contextualization controversy. In spite of our erudition and desire to be culturally astute, we have overlooked this obvious elephant in the room.
Staying with the example of the book of Hebrews, it is patently true that “What the writer is concerned to have his readers grasp clearly is that they are ‘in these last days’ when God has spoken his final word in his Son (1:2), when Christ ‘has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself…and…will appear a second time…to bring salvation” (9:26, 28). Once again, Gaffin has introduced the obvious, but it is highly instructive. He concludes, “The ultimately relevant and decisive ‘context’ of his readers’ existence, in all its undoubtedly enculturated particularity, is not that particular context but the period between the exaltation and return of Christ, in which the church has its identity as the new and final wilderness community (esp. 3:7ff.).”[10]
Simply put, what is often lacking in modern church services is precisely the relationship between “doing church” and preaching. It’s somewhat understandable when Joel Osteen is not concerned with biblical worship but with entertaining the troops. It’s quite another thing when some PCA pastors are guilty of the same thing.

[1] For this answer, the authors offer us the following texts as pertinent: Eph. 5:26; John 10:11; Acts 20:28; Eph. 4:11-13; Gen. 26:4; Rev. 5:9; Ps. 71:17-18; Isa. 59:21; 1 Cor. 11:26; Matt. 16:18; John 10:28-30; Ps. 129:1-5; Rom. 1:16; 10:14-17; Acts 2:42; Eph. 4:3-5; Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:10-13; 1 John 3:14, 19-21; 2 Cor. 13:5; Rom. 8:10; Ps. 23:6; 1 Cor. 1:8-9; John 10:28; 1 John 2:19; 1 Pet. 1:5.
[2] Zacharias Ursinus, Het Schatboek der verklaring over de Heidelbergse Catechismus, Vol. 1, (Festus Hommius [trans.]), (Dordrecht: Uitgeverij J.P. van den Tol, 1977), p. 436.
[3] Ibid., 445. Cf. Isa. 37:32; Ezek. 13:9; Joel 2:32; John 15:4; 3:36.
[4] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2, (John McNeill [ed.] & Ford Lewis Battles [trans.]), (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 19674), p. 1012.
[5] Ibid., 1011-1012, where he says, “And in order that the preaching of the gospel might flourish, he (God) deposited this treasure in the church.”
[6] Ibid., 4.1.5, p. 1017.
[7] Ibid., 1019.
[8] Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “The Vitality of Reformed Systematic Theology,” in Anthony T. Selvaggio (ed.), The Faith Once Delivered, Essays in Honor of Dr. Wayne R. Spear, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 2007), p. 28.
[9] Ibid. Footnote 77.
[10] Ibid.

The Church of Christ (II)

The Catholic Christian Church
We are examining the Reformed understanding of the Church of Jesus Christ. In the Belgic Confession (1561), Article 27 addresses the matter of “The Catholic Christian Church.”[1] How did the Reformers understand the nature and character of Christ’s Church? The opening words of this article set the stage: “We believe and profess one catholic or universal Church, which is a holy congregation of true Christian believers, all expecting their salvation in Jesus Christ, being washed by his blood, sanctified and sealed by the Holy Spirit.”[2]
In one sense, this statement might seem somewhat routine, but it isn’t. It is a masterful summary of the essence of Christ’s Church. Christians are those who both believe and profess a universal Church. What is that Church like? It is a holy congregation. Let’s pause there for a moment because this qualifier points us in one direction only regarding the Church. The holiness of the congregation ought to be, first and foremost, a reflection of the holiness of our Savior. God raises the bar and sets high standards for the Church (cf. Matt. 5:48). Part of the problem for the modern Church is that the bar has been lowered and the teaching/preaching substantially dumbed-down so that holiness is not on the minds of some Christians.
Reliable statistics point to a sharp downturn in biblical morality among Christians so that incidences of marital infidelity, addiction to (Internet) pornography, divorce, homosexuality, unbiblical business practices, cheating on expense accounts and taxes, and a host of other sins go unchecked. This is not even taking into account those who do not commit such sins but have virtually no Bible reading, prayer time, and family devotions. In the final analysis, what amounts to “holiness” is going to a true church (we’ll see in Article 29 how the B.C. says each Christian ought to go about seeking out, attending, and attaching him- or herself to a true church) and not merely one that calls itself a church. As we progress through de Brès’ exposition of this section of the B.C. we’ll discover that there is a spiritual process that is necessary for the Christian that involves a great deal more than the garden variety “church shopping,” “church hopping,” and the superficial “I want to be entertained” mentality manifested by some—many—today. Few today take the requisite time to perform a biblical search for a true church—to their detriment and the detriment of their respective families.
Holiness is for Christians only and for serious Christians at that. De Brès explains that the holy congregation is comprised of true Christian believers, which he will also qualify according to biblical, Reformed standards in Article 29. It is important to note at this juncture however that his emphasis is on the communio sanctorum aspect, thereby distancing himself from the Roman Catholic emphasis on the church as Institute. For example, Rome defines the Church as “The congregation of all the faithful, who, being baptized, profess the same faith, partake of the same sacrament, and are governed by their lawful pastors, under one visible head on earth.”[3] The Greek Orthodox conception of the Church is the step-sister of Roman Catholicism. It also emphasizes the external organization of the church and locates the essence of the Church in the Episcopal hierarchy. “The infallibility of the Church is maintained, but his infallibility resides in the bishops, and therefore in the ecclesiastical councils and synods.”[4]

How Long Has the Church Been Around?
Like his fellow-Reformers, de Brès asserts that “This Church hath been from the beginning of the world, and will be to the end thereof; which is evident from this, that Christ is an eternal king, which, without subjects he cannot be.”[5] In opposition to Dispensationalists who believe that the Church was a sort of “afterthought” in Christ’s mind, a sound reading of Scripture points in an entirely different direction. Even though she has gone through a number of modifications the Church has been one in both testaments. The Church has been in existence from the outset and will be until the end.
This should, in our day and age, give us great confidence because what David Wells calls “our time” manifests one of the most deplorable lacks of biblical knowledge than almost any previous time. It is, indeed, comparable to the Dark Ages, which is tantamount to 1,000 years without a spiritual bath. It is also clear that de Brès understood that true Christians are the subjects of Christ’s kingship. In the Heidelberg Catechism (Lord’s Day 12, Q/A 31) we are asked why our Lord is called Christ, the Anointed One. Part of the answer to that question reveals to us that he is “our eternal King, who governs us by his Word and Spirit, and who defends and preserves us in the enjoyment of that salvation, he has purchased for us.”[6]
What is key for us to note is the combination of Word and Spirit that not only permeates this confessional statement but also virtually every other Reformed confession as well. The modern Church has found a number of surrogates for the Word and Spirit, but in the Reformed tradition there has always been a healthy emphasis on the two working together. The same Spirit who inspired the scriptures works in the hearts and minds of the true Christians, true members of Christ’s Church both to enlighten and to illumine. One of the key places where this combination works is in and through sound preaching of the Word of God.
This is truly an area where the modern Church is bankrupt and has given the “seekers” stones for bread. Preaching has been de-emphasized and all but pushed off into an obscure corner. The praise band and leadership team take center stage—and a stage it is because it certainly isn’t a chancel. During the Middle Ages and afterwards, the altar of the Roman Catholic Church was in the center of the sanctuary. The pulpit, where the short homily was delivered was off to the side. In many churches today the sermon is a “side dish” and is preferably kept short—very short—and upbeat, filled with anecdotes and the more or less loose stringing together of quotable quotes. If there even is a text and it is read, it is then relegated to a place where it will never be heard from the rest of the service. If it is heard from again the poor text is twisted and distorted to mean anything and everything the pastor wants it to mean that day. Sadly the ill-trained and ill-equipped audience will never know the difference.
Thankfully, there are still faithful churches of Jesus Christ where the Word of God is proclaimed plainly and clearly and where faithful pastors will preach what Scripture teaches even, if necessary, to their d