ecclesiological repentance
[Unless otherwise noted, all quotes are from Bullinger’s Decades and have been lightly adapted.]
I used to hate the church. Well, maybe hate is too strong a word, at least for the church herself. But I thought the doctrine of the church, ecclesiology, was divisive and narrow. And I thought the church was pretty irrelevant, out of touch, obsessed with things that didn’t matter, narrow. There were much better ways of reaching people than through the church. Other organisations were doing it better than the local church. Other ways of thinking were far more important than the church.
Now I could justify myself and blame it on the church in which I grew up. I could blame it on the ecclesiology lectures I sat through in theological college. I could blame it on the narrowness of our particular corner of Christianity. I could even say that many of those concerns I mentioned above were in fact valid. But I was still wrong; I still despised the church, Christ’s bride. Funny enough, I still wanted to be a pastor, I just didn’t like the church. Great pastor I would have made.
Then, sometime near the end of my time in theological school, I started reading men who really loved the church. For the first time in my life I heard defences of ecclesiology that were driven by love, by a sense of the goodness, the truth, and even the beauty of a biblical model of how the church is constituted, is governed, and functions. I saw pastoral theology worked out in a particular and local setting. I was convicted, and I was awed. Jesus loves his church, and so should I. So I slowly began to repent of my contempt for the church for which Jesus died, and I started to pour myself into the study of the church.
New categories I’d never dreamed existed opened up. The church, which I’d previously only seen in sharp black and white, began to show up in vivid colour. The church was absolutely glorious. Of course she’s flawed today. Of course there are problems in the church. But Jesus is making her beautiful, and if I can’t see that, I’m blind to the purpose behind Jesus’ work.
I wonder if that’s something of how the first generations of Reformers felt. The church that they grew up under was crippling and suffocating. Once the light of the gospel began to shine through the darkness, and once the church was freed from the strangling chains of man-made tradition, new opportunities for local church fellowship and genuine pastoral care began to grow up all over life. The church began to breathe and thrive. Finally, this is what we see in the book of Acts.
The fifth and final decade of Bullinger’s sermons deals with the church. In many ways, Bullinger has saved the best wine till last. This is where all the other doctrines come together. This is where we see the cash value of everything else he’s explored in the previous 40 sermons. This is where all that he’s taught is applied. This is why it matters: in the local church.
The order and course of these matters leads us next, after God – the builder and author of all things – to speak of his most excellent work: the church. For so great is the goodness of our good God and most loving Father, that he himself doesn’t desire to live happy and blessed alone, but instead gives and pours out upon us men – his dearly loved creatures – all kinds of blessedness. For that intent he chooses men for himself who live in this world, that he may bring them to himself, in whom he may dwell even though they live here, whom he may enrich with all his goods, in whom he may reign, and who shall be called by his name: in other words, a people, a house, a kingdom, an inheritance, a flock, a congregation or church of the living God.
The church is the gift of God. It’s the demonstration of his kindness and goodness towards men.
What does Bullinger think is important to point out regarding this church?
1. There’s a distinction between the visible church and the invisible church.
Theological divisions between Presbyterians and Baptists aside, this distinction is critical for the church in this age. Not all Israel are Israel. Not everyone in the church is regenerate. Not all church members are believers. This is a basic category that is essential for how we think about the church.
The visible and outward church is that which is outwardly known by men for a church, by hearing God’s word and partaking of his sacraments, and by public confession of their faith. The invisible and inward church is called such, not because men are invisible, but because their faith can’t be seen with man’s eye, and yet it appears before God’s eyes who truly believes and who only gives lip service to faith. For true believers are the truly living members of this inward church.
Why does this distinction matter? Because there are men and women in the church, who grow up in the church, who make profession of faith in Christ and allegiance to his church, who nevertheless fall away, make shipwreck of their faith, and look – in the end – no different than unbelievers. This sadly includes many pastors. We have to have a category for those who seem to be godly but later turn away. This is in many ways the application of Jesus’ parable of the good seed. Good seed falls on bad soil and produces deceptive growth. Or Jesus’ parable of the weeds sown in and among the good seed. They’re intermixed and impossible to fully separate. We have to accept that not all the church are part of the church, including in our own congregations.
Now this hardly means we are constantly on the lookout for tares within our flocks. We’re not secretly suspecting which of our church members isn’t actually a member of the invisible church. But when a church member or a pastor falls away, it’s not quite as destabilising to us as it could be. Jesus warned us the field was mixed. And, this is another reason we should constantly be preaching the gospel to our congregations. We need the gospel, and so do those in our flocks whose faith is not yet genuine.
It also means that we who are entrusted with the care of souls, and even the whole of the body, should be diligent to care for one another so that our congregations aren’t encouraging superficial profession. Our love for one another should be such that true faith will be evident and merely outward conformity will be obvious.
2. True churches are defined by certain marks.
There are certain tokens and marks by which this church may be known in this world. There are two special and principal marks, the sincere preaching of the word of God, and the lawful partaking of the sacraments of Christ. Some add to these the study of godliness and unity, patience in affliction, and calling on the name of God by Christ; but we include them in the two marks we’ve already set down.
What is central to a biblical church? The preaching of the word, and the administration of the sacraments. Friends, this is what’s essential. Everything else is gravy. It’s not that denominational distinctives don’t matter; it’s certainly not that there’s nothing else that’s important in differences between various churches. But what is fundamental to a true church? That it preaches the Bible, and it administers the sacraments.
Functionally, the emphasis on the right administration of the sacraments points to biblical pastoral care. Other Reformation discussions of marks of the church include discipline, but that’s also implicitly included under the right use of the sacraments. If you’re going to use the sacraments rightly, you must have an understanding of who is a member and who is not. You have to know who is part of the flock. Granted, we can’t see the heart, but repentance is usually shown outwardly as well as inwardly.
When I teach on the church in my congregation, I’m encouraging those there that if they ever need to find another church, they need to look for two things: is God’s word faithfully preached, and will their souls be looked after? If you find a church with those two things, settle there. Everything else will sort itself out. You might have to give on some denominational distinctives or stylistic differences or even some theological disagreements, but at least there you’ll be cared for. There you can grow. That’s good soil for those in whom the seed of the word has taken root. Is the word faithfully preached and are the souls of the church members cared for? That’s a true church.
3. There are different sorts of church power.
Power is defined to be a right according to which men are able to act. There is one sort of power, which is free and absolute; and there’s another sort of power, which is limited and is also called ministerial. Absolute power is that which is altogether free, and it’s neither governed nor restrained by the law or will of another. This is the sort of power Christ speaks of in the gospels when he says, ‘All power is given to me in heaven and in earth; go therefore and teach all nations, baptising them’…. The power which is limited is not free, and it’s subject to an absolute or greater power of another. It cannot do everything of itself, but only that which the absolute power or greater authority allows it to do, and even that under certain conditions. Surely ecclesiastical jurisdiction is of this latter sort and may rightly be called ministerial power, for the church of God uses her authority committed to her for this purpose by her ministers. In the church, Christ reserves absolute power for himself alone, for he continues as head, king, and bishop of the church forever, neither is he as life-giving head ever separated from his body at any time. He gives limited power to the church. This is something it ought to acknowledge, that ecclesiastical jurisdiction is hemmed in by certain laws which proceed from God, and is for that reason alone effective, and therefore in all things it ought to have regard unto God. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is for that purpose given to the church, that it might be put into practice for the profit of the church.
Even in the days of the Magisterial Reformation there was an understanding of the limits of church power. Why does this matter for us in days when pastors have no civic authority? It matters for this central reason: pastoral authority is a delegated authority, and it is a bounded authority. Pastors have been given authority from Jesus our Savior, and that authority is constrained to the word of God. Now this authority is a genuine authority. The church is commanded to obey her earthly leaders. But for pastors, do we realise that our authority is limited to the word of God? Where scripture is clear, we may be clear. The farther we get from clear scriptural teaching and into wisdom and application or interpretation, there we must be more content with influence and advice rather than authority.
Too often pastors think the authority that has been given them is now vested in them as ministers. No, we wield Christ’s authority, and we are permitted to be authoritative only on what he has given us warrant to be authoritative on (ie what he’s given us in his word). When we as pastors issue commands for the congregation, we must be sure we have scriptural warrant for such commands, otherwise we are abusing the authority entrusted to us. We are certainly permitted to offer insight and wisdom, but our sheep are under no obligation to obey us where we speak beyond scripture, and it’s essential that we know this limitation. Of course they should heed our counsel and listen to our wisdom, but authority of counsel is a different category entirely to authority of command. Right use of the authority entrusted to us by our King and Savior requires us to understand this distinction.
But one final lesson…
4. Bullinger clearly loved the church, and so should we.
He writes in his closing meditation in this sermon, that this church
is exercised with afflictions, but yet is never overcome. It keeps unity and communion carefully. She most tenderly loves all and every member of her body. It does good to all men, as much as power and ability allow. It hurts no man. It forgives willingly. It bears with the weak in brotherly affection till they are brought forward to perfection. She is not puffed up with pride, but through humility she is kept in obedience and modesty, and all the duties of godliness. And who would not desire to be a member of so divine and heavenly a congregation?
Is this the sort of church we belong to? Is this the sort of church that – though imperfect – we earnestly love? Is this the sort of church for which we are spending ourselves and being spent? Is this the sort of church we labour to be building? Is this the sort of church for which we are pouring out our very lives? It ought to be, because this is the church for whom Christ died.
And now, lifting up our minds into heaven, let us give thanks to the Lord our God, who through his beloved Son has purified us and gathered us together, to be a chosen people for himself, and to be heirs of all his heavenly treasures. To him therefore be all praise and glory, world without end.
Amen.
Next, on the unity of the church
