In this issue of Equip to Disciple, the focus in this lead article is the church. To develop this theme we will refer to two main writings by two familiar names to us: one is a chapter by J.I. Packer and the other a forthcoming book by John R.W. Stott. As we expound this theme, our intent is not only to make some general observations but also some specific ones which we hope will encourage readers to take the time to read Stott’s latest book, The Living Church: Convictions of a Lifelong Pastor. 

The subject of the church has been on our hearts lately for several reasons. It appears that for some, the church is not viewed as the bride of Christ and given the place it deserves within the Christian faith. The famous saying of John Calvin, “He who has God for his father, will have the church for his mother,” is not taken very seriously nor is the strategic place of the church in God’s design. This is especially true today. We are seeing and hearing more and more negatives regarding the church. Things such as the church is an institution vs. a movement, or the church rep resents a paradigm that doesn’t apply to today’s concept of Christianity, or the church lacks authenticity and integrity. George Gallup Jr. and George Barna are serious when they warn that the church may be only one generation from extinction. Of course, they are referring to the organized church as we know it.

Bruce Hindmarsh states in the opening chapter of Evangelical Ecclesiology: Reality or Illusion? (John G. Stackhouse editor), “When one thinks about the evangelicals and what they hold dear, one would be forgiven for not thinking immediately of the church. Indeed one might even suggest, given the history of schism among evangelicals, the ‘evangelical ecclesiology’ is an oxymoron.” Therefore, he suggests that maybe the church is a non-ecclesial form of religion and evangelicalism is merely a sociological movement. I have been particularly aware of evangelicalism’s attempt to be transdenominational and international— to be inclusive but at the same time not seeing the role and place of the church in that area.

J. I. Packer in the book Ancient & Postmodern Christianity wrote a chapter entitled “A Stunted Ecclesiology.” He writes, “I am making a case for genuine churchliness of today’s evangelical church, a churchliness that is directly in line with that of the churches that separated from Rome at the time of the Reformation. It is a case, I believe, that urgently needs to be made, both because this recovered churchliness is a significant fact that is often overlooked and because much of evangelicalism is in a state of cognitive dissonance about it, affirming churchliness yet retaining an ethos and mindset that seems to observers to deny it.” After stating five reasons why evangelicals have a stunted ecclesiology, he concluded, “My hope is that in this new century the churchliness of evangelicalism will become evident. As my analysis shows, the difficulty here is more practical than theoretical. Evangelical ecclesiology is not stunted, but evangelical churchliness as a mindset and an ethos is, and without rethinking and adjustment this will continue, so that the credibility of the evangelical claim to mainstream status as church will remain suspect and perhaps be forfeited.…We wait and see.”

For space reasons, I will mention three of the five reasons for his conclusion regarding the church’s stuntedness.
1. The church is too centered on salvation. While Packer states the extreme importance of fully grasping the gospel, the focus of the church has been so much directed in that area that it has led to a human centered theologizing which sets human needs center stage and makes the Trinity’s role simply one of saving individuals. He says “church life is thought out and set forth in terms of furthering people’s salvation rather than of worshiping and glorifying God.”
2. The parachurch-centeredness is virtually an evangelical trademark. While maintaining that parachurch ministries are needed for the kingdom, they tend to take away from or divert resources and people from the church to the parachurch direction. He writes, “Sadly, by the same narrowing process that was described above, these agencies of God’s kingdom draw interest, prayer, enthusiasm, and money away from the wider-ranging, slower-moving, less glamorous realities of congregational life, so that the parachurch body comes to have pride of place in supporters’ affections and in effect to be their church.”
3. The independent church syndrome. Packer says this matches the above but goes further than the parachurch centeredness. While we thank God for the churches, Packer says, “A problem lurks here. Independent congregations are such through declining connectional bonds with other congregations— such bonds, I mean, as synods, councils, superintendent ministers, bishops, and court systems provide.” (Packer is an Anglican by church affiliation).

Our experience would concur with the above characteristics listed by Packer, and we are not encouraged because such characteristics are proliferating. As we highlight some of John Stott’s thoughts and comments on the church in his latest book, we are reminded of his statements in other articles that the churches of the West are tired and in need of a rest. Of course, the implication is that the church cannot afford to be tired and in need of a rest. I believe there is a clear correlation between a low view of the church and a lack of understanding of the Kingdom of God and how the church fits into and relates to the broader kingdom, although there are so many ways we could go with this if space allowed. Much of evangelical Christianity has not appreciated nor gotten that relationship straight in the past, and much of today’s broad emerging church paradigm doesn’t have a clear biblical theological model for the church and its place within the kingdom. Hence, the church is not taken with the seriousness that I believe one should take with the bride of Christ or His body.

While I have made it a point over the years to read everything I can by Stott, this little book on the church is outstanding. Even though I could have wished for the reader’s sake that he would have dealt more with the kingdom in connection with the church, this is an excellent book. I was privileged to read the galley proofs before going to press. I could not put it down. Here is a churchman in his late 80’s, actually 86 years of age, writing about his observations and challenges regarding the church. The opening statement of the pre face regarding the Church of England equally applies to the Reformed and Presbyterian churches, especially to the Presbyterian Church in America. Quoting the Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie, Stott writes, “If the current evangelical renewal in the Church of England is to have a lasting impact, then there must be more explicit attention given to the doctrine of the church.” Stott mentions the increased number of books focusing on the theme that the church is “out of tune with contemporary culture and that unless it comes to terms with change, it faces extinction. ”Of course he said the church will prevail. When the paradigm in western culture began to shift from modernism to post modernism, the shift had a definite impact on the church.

Stott is right to suggest that how the shift plays out requires much discernment, especially for those identified with the church. He wisely counsels, “It seems to me that the traditional and emerging churches need to listen to one another, with a view to learning from one another. ”The traditional church is a reference to the church as we have generally known it over the years. The emerging church is a general statement referring to those who are attempting to develop new paradigms for the church following much of postmodern philosophy.

He further reminds us to remember that while culture goes through constant change, Scripture is unchangeable. Then he states that the purpose of this book “is to bring together a number of characteristics of what I will call an authentic or living church, whether it calls itself ‘emerging’ or not.”

From there Stott states with conviction that the church is no afterthought with God. “It is at the very center of the eternal purpose of God.” He reminds us that the church in the West is not presently growing. He also, like Packer, refers to the stuntedness of the church. Using Acts 2:42-47, he then sets out four essentials which he says are the parts of God’s vision for his church. They are:
A learning church - The first thing Luke said in Acts 2 was that the church devoted itself to the apostles’ teachings. We cannot bypass teaching sound doctrine, as well as what is in accord with sound doctrine, and expect God to bless us. Anti-intellectualism plagues the broader evangelical church today. Some world leaders are saying that the church “is a mile wide and an inch deep.” Not knowing what we believe and not being able to give a reason to those who ask why we believe what we believe is incompatible with biblical Christianity. What we believe does in fact matter greatly. Truth matters!
A caring church - “They devoted themselves… to the fellowship.” They had all things in common and shared with one another according to their needs (Act 2:44-45). Here, Stott particularly positions small group ministry in the life of the church. There was a general pastoral model for a caring church in the early church.
A worshiping church - ”They devoted themselves to the breaking of the bread.” The early church experienced both a joyful and reverent worship. First of all, the church is to pay attention to the biblical soundness of our worship; and then under that umbrella we can then think of each other’s preferences. The church, though being one body, is a diversified people who need each other, even in worship. Stott wrote, “When I attend some church services, I almost think I have come to a funeral by mistake… At the same time the early church’s worship was never irreverent... Some church services today are flippant.”
An evangelizing church - To be preoccupied with itself is a danger for the churches to beware of. The early church was committed to missions (Acts 2:47). Christ added to the church such as were saved. The two go together, and trying to make that merely a reference to the mystical body of Christ and by-pass the local church was not the model of the early church. Converts to Christ were added daily; and as Stott says, they related both to the apostles and their teaching and to one another. They loved each other, which is the basic ingredient of a loving and caring church.

I would encourage each pastor, elder, deacon, and others who teach and lead in the church to read Stott’s book, but only with the warning that it might change the way you think about some things. Stott does not give out mixed signals. For example, Jesus defines Christians as salt and light, implying that Christians are to be radically different in the way we think and live in contrast to non-Christians. Jesus made it perfectly clear in places such as the Sermon on the Mount and the parables that Christians are to be different. One way we function as salt and light is to take our Christianity into the marketplace, or as Stott says, “permeate secular culture for Christ in our daily work.” You do not have to be a professional minister or missionary to do that. This is where the process of making kingdom disciples reminds us that no matter what we do, we are to do all to God’s glory. Stott asks, “Why don’t we Christians have a more wholesome effect on society?…Who’s to blame?...Where is the light?” Those rhetorical questions set the stage for Stott to remind us that “we must accept the role which Jesus has assigned to us.”

I agree with him that the church is in need of, and hopefully even looking for, a new freshness. Stott says that while he is in the ninth decade of his life, “I often find myself looking into the future and longing that God will raise up a new generation of Timothys who are called to be different from the prevailing culture.”

Unlike some appear to be doing today by ignoring or speaking badly of the church, I think of the need to offer counsel to the Bride. All is not well for the wedding or consummation where the church is concerned; and as counsel is offered, we are aware of the need to deal with the Bride’s role in the overall design of God. It is to make kingdom disciples. As I apply this to our own church, the PCA, I believe we are facing great challenges and opportunities that we must address collectively. We are a connectional church, though sometimes, even as one of the organizers in 1973, I tend to think that the PCA is a Presbyterian denomination in theory but in a parachurch shroud in practice. I believe with all my heart that God has given us an opportunity to make a difference by being kingdom minded people. I believe with a little tweaking, by being sound in doctrine, committed to Christ by developing a Christlike character, by demonstrating the marks of the church set forth in Acts 2:42-47 and the historic Reformed marks of the church, learning how to downplay our American independency and experience a real body life, and realizing that as we are discipled by the church to be kingdom disciples, God sends us into the world with the mandate to claim all of life for his glory.

The PCA has a great opportunity to make a difference for Christ and his kingdom but only if we practice our theory. As is true of the kingdom, the church is not about us. Packer is right. We must not center on man but rather on God. We must come together with a working connectionalism that enables us to be all that God would have us to be. We must not look to parachurch ministries to relieve us of our assignment to make kingdom disciples and prepare God’s people to move into the world under the banner of Christ, seeking to do all and claim all to the glory of God. The ball is now in our court, and our future will reveal whether or not we have been and done what God intended for us.

The Living Church, Convictions of a Lifelong Pastor, John R.W. Stott, InterVarsity Press,180 pages, 2007,$13.60 (#8901)