One of the pressing concerns that resurfaced during the Protestant Reformation was how to distinguish between true and false churches. An answer chosen by the early Reformers was that a true church is one that preaches the Word of God purely and administers the Sacraments properly; these two "marks" are noted in the Augsburg Confession (1530) and in the writings of John Calvin (1509-1564). Later, concern for the continuing purity of the Church led Protestant theologians to add the faithful administration of church discipline as a third necessary "mark of the Church." The resulting "three marks" appear in Article 29 of the Belgic Confession (1561), and a variation on them is suggested in Chapter 25 of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647).
However, as a means of identifying what is a true church, these "marks" make a somewhat odd and lopsided combination. As pastor Brian McLaughlin points out, the two or three marks have come to represent for many North American Christians the whole essence of the Church, as if the church was a place where you came to hear preaching, eat the Lord's Supper, and (maybe) experience the corrective power of church discipline. For the ordinary Christian, participation in these things tends to be passive, and one's daily life can be largely unaffected.
Shouldn't love be acknowledged as one of the essential elements of any true church? If so, these words of Pope Benedict XVI (from his 2005 encyclical "Deus Caritas Est") provide a better description of the marks of the Church:
The Church's deepest nature is expressed in her three-fold responsibility: of proclaiming the word of God (kerygma-martyria), celebrating the sacraments (leitourgia), and exercising the ministry of charity (diakonia). These duties presuppose each other and are inseparable. For the Church, charity is not a kind of welfare activity which could equally well be left to others, but is a part of her nature, an indispensable expression of her very being.
No matter how correct their preaching and sacraments may be, a church without love is a dead church. If we discuss the essential nature of the Church but ignore the centrality of Christian love and its natural results (which include church discipline, missions, etc.), then we lose everything and gain nothing (1 Corinthians 13:1-3).
6 comments:
yaa. good post. i wud kinda wanna rethink teh whole issue.
also ... i might say that during teh reformation it wasn't so much about distinguishing between "true and false churches" but between "the true and the false Church."
great blog. It's amazing how much the church, particularly in the west, has abandoned the idea of charity. If you look where the typical church in the west places its resources, it certainly doesn't appear that charity/care is in it's top emphases.
200 years ago, the church was asleep on the issue of slavery. today, the church is sleeping on the issues of environmental stewardship and poverty (among others). Let's pray that the sleeping bride awakens to live out her calling in this difficult time!
A little tangential, and I'm not too up on the history, but would the preaching of the pure gospel be more accurate than preaching the gospel purely? In the second, if the preaching is not pure, the Church ceases to be a Church, whereas on the first, the church only ceases to be a church if Christ is no longer proclaimed.
Interesting question, Matt. From a historical standpoint, the Augsburg Confession (Lutheran), Belgic Confession (Continental Reformed), and Westminster Confession (British Reformed) all say that not just the gospel, but the preaching of it must be "pure" or "right."
But on the larger issue, where do we get the idea of "marks of the true Church" (thanks, Berek)? And is any of our traditional lists actually a Biblical definition of what is necessary for the true Church to exist? I'm not sure.
Augustine said that the true Church is characterized by love ("charity"), which is where Billy's point is important. But even the Ephesian church in Revelation 2, having lost its first love, was still a church and had not (yet!) had its candlestick removed.
I'll have to give these issues more thought.
Reformed site; visit, comment, pls; TheAmericanView.com
JLof@aol.com
Thanks for this post, you make a good point. The concern of the initial reformers was to set up the structure of a new church which would last. As we know any structure can be filled with life and love or remain just a structure, an empty framework. This said, I think the 'marks' do give us a good working definition
It is every Christian's responsibility to LIVE doctrine, not simply to LEARN it.
Berek makes a good point also - context is all important here.
Post a Comment