Tag Archives: Ecclesiology
On the Priority of the “Local” Church
Paul Washer has been quoted as saying, “Don’t look for the church nearest to your house; look for the church closest to the Bible.” I understand the point, and there is considerable wisdom in it. Christians need faithful, Bible-believing churches, and proximity can never compensate for serious theological or ecclesiological unfaithfulness. Yet I wonder whether, in emphasizing the first half of that equation, we have sometimes neglected the importance of the second. It has become increasingly normal for Christians to drive thirty, forty, or even fifty minutes to attend their preferred church, sometimes passing several faithful churches along the way. Of course, there may be good reasons for doing so. But the New Testament’s vision of the church is profoundly local. Churches are gathered in particular places, composed of people who worship together, bear one another’s burdens, submit to one another, serve one another, and bear witness to Christ within the communities where God has placed them. The local church is therefore more than a place where Christians receive good preaching on Sunday morning. It is a community in which they share the ordinary rhythms of Christian life. Perhaps, then, the question is not simply whether we have found a church faithful enough to attend, but whether we have planted our lives deeply enough within a local church to truly belong to one.
Part of the problem is that the modern world has accustomed us to living our lives across increasingly large geographical areas. We may live in one town, work in another, send our children to school in another, and regularly drive considerable distances for shopping, entertainment, and recreation. It is perhaps unsurprising, then, that we have begun to approach the church in much the same way. Rather than looking first for a faithful congregation within the community where we already live, we can survey churches across a wide area and choose according to our particular preferences: preaching style, music, children’s ministry, programs, demographics, theological distinctives, or any number of other considerations. None of these things is necessarily unimportant, and some may represent legitimate theological convictions rather than mere preferences. The danger comes when this way of choosing a church subtly transforms the congregation into another religious service that we consume. We drive somewhere on Sunday morning to receive the preaching, worship, and programming we prefer, and then drive back to a life that remains largely disconnected from the people with whom we have just worshiped. But a church is not merely a place where Christians gather for a few hours each week. It is a people to whom we belong. And if belonging to a church means sharing our lives with one another, then the distance between our church life and the rest of our life may matter more than we sometimes imagine.
This emphasis on belonging reflects the way the New Testament ordinarily speaks about the church. Certainly, there is a universal dimension to the church: Christ is building his church (Matt 16.18), and all who belong to him constitute his body. Yet this universal church repeatedly takes concrete expression in particular congregations located in particular places. We read of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 8.1), the church at Antioch (Acts 13.1), the church of God in Corinth (1 Cor 1.2), and the churches scattered throughout cities and regions across the Roman world. These were not merely collections of Christians who happened to attend the same worship service. They were identifiable communities of believers who knew one another, worshiped together, appointed and submitted to leaders, cared for members in need, practiced discipline, supported the work of the gospel, and shared responsibility for one another’s faithfulness. This is why Paul can describe the church as a body whose individual members belong to one another and depend upon one another for the health of the whole (1 Cor 12.12–27). The New Testament church is therefore universal in scope but irreducibly local in expression. Christianity does not merely unite individual believers to Christ; it joins believers to Christ’s people. And ordinarily, that belonging becomes visible not through an abstract relationship to Christians everywhere, but through committed participation in a particular congregation of Christians somewhere.
This local character of the church becomes especially important when we consider the numerous “one another” commands scattered throughout the New Testament. Christians are commanded to love one another (John 13.34), serve one another (Gal 5.13), bear one another’s burdens (Gal 6.2), encourage one another (1 Thess 5.11), confess their sins and pray for one another (Jas 5.16), show hospitality to one another (1 Pet 4.9), and teach and admonish one another (Col 3.16). These commands envision considerably more than occupying the same room for an hour or two on Sunday morning. They assume a shared life in which believers know one another well enough to recognize burdens, meet needs, offer encouragement, practice hospitality, and intervene when a brother or sister begins to wander. Of course, none of these commands establishes a geographical radius within which Christians must live, and modern transportation allows us to maintain relationships across distances that would have been unimaginable in the first century. Nevertheless, proximity ordinarily facilitates the kind of shared life these commands envision. It is much easier to bring a meal, open our homes, care for children, visit the sick, respond to an unexpected need, or simply participate in the ordinary rhythms of one another’s lives when the members of a church actually live near one another. The question, then, is not merely whether we can make the drive to church each Sunday, but whether we are close enough to its people to share our lives with them throughout the week.
The importance of this shared life becomes even clearer when we consider the means through which God ordinarily brings Christians to maturity. From the beginning, the church devoted itself to “the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2.42). Christians grow through the preaching of the Word, prayer, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, fellowship, accountability, discipline, and the ordinary encouragement of other believers. Indeed, Paul describes the church as a body in which Christ gives pastors and teachers to equip the saints for ministry so that the entire body might grow together toward maturity in Christ (Eph 4.11–16). Christian growth is therefore not merely the result of receiving biblical information from a gifted preacher. It occurs as believers are joined to a community in which every member contributes to the spiritual health of the others. The same is true of pastoral ministry. Elders are not merely preachers whose sermons we consume each week; they are shepherds charged with keeping watch over particular souls for whom they will give an account (Heb 13.17). Such shepherding assumes that pastors know their people and that those people are sufficiently involved in the life of the congregation to be known. God certainly uses ministries beyond the local church for our good, but the ordinary pattern of the New Testament places our worship, discipleship, accountability, and perseverance within the life of a particular congregation.
There is also a missional dimension to the local character of the church. When God sent the exiles into Babylon, he instructed them to “seek the welfare of the city” where he had sent them (Jer 29.7). This passage is not, of course, a direct command concerning New Testament church membership, but it reflects a broader biblical principle that God’s people are called to live faithfully in the places where his providence has situated them. The church’s witness likewise occurs not merely in the abstract but in actual neighborhoods, towns, and cities where Christians live alongside unbelieving neighbors, coworkers, friends, and family members. Ideally, then, our church life and our community life should not exist in two entirely separate geographical worlds. When Christians worship, serve, and build relationships with believers who share the same communities in which they live, the church is better positioned to become a visible presence for the gospel within that place. Members can invite neighbors into relationships that naturally extend into the life of the congregation, churches can become more attentive to the needs of their communities, and evangelism can emerge from the ordinary relationships of everyday life. Again, none of this means that every Christian must attend the congregation geographically nearest to his or her home. But it does suggest that there is something valuable about churches that bloom where their members are planted: particular communities of Christians bearing witness to Christ together in the particular communities where God has placed them.
If the local church occupies this kind of place in the Christian life, then it should inevitably shape some of the larger decisions we make about where and how we live. Christians routinely make decisions about education, employment, housing, retirement, and relocation on the basis of numerous legitimate considerations: salary, cost of living, proximity to family, quality of schools, career opportunities, and countless others. Yet the local church can easily become an afterthought. We decide where we want to live and only afterward ask whether there happens to be a faithful church somewhere within driving distance. Perhaps we should reverse that order, or at least bring the church much earlier into the conversation. If God ordinarily intends Christians to grow, worship, serve, persevere, and participate in his mission through the life of a local congregation, then the availability of a faithful church should matter when deciding where we plant our lives. This does not mean that the church must always outweigh every other consideration, nor that Christians are wrong to accept jobs or pursue opportunities that require relocation. It simply means that belonging to Christ’s people should be treated as one of the defining priorities of the Christian life. Before asking only, “Where can I find the best job, house, or opportunity?” perhaps we should also be asking, “Where can I faithfully belong to Christ’s people and invest my life alongside them?”
None of this is intended to establish an arbitrary geographical rule for church membership. There are many legitimate reasons why Christians may need to travel some distance to belong to a faithful church. Those living in rural communities may have few healthy congregations nearby. Others may face significant theological disagreements with the churches closest to them, require a congregation that ministers in a particular language, or have family and ministry circumstances that make a more distant church the wisest choice. Churches themselves can change, decline, or depart from convictions that once made them faithful places to belong. Nor should proximity ever be used to justify remaining in a church that has abandoned the gospel or seriously compromised the teaching of Scripture. The point, then, is not that Christians must always attend the church geographically closest to their homes. Proximity should not trump faithfulness, but neither should it be treated as irrelevant to faithfulness. If two churches are genuinely faithful, there is real value in considering where we can most meaningfully share life, serve, practice hospitality, receive pastoral care, participate in mission, and bear one another’s burdens. The goal is not to calculate how many miles Christians are permitted to drive on Sunday morning. It is to recover a vision of church membership in which belonging to a local congregation means sharing our lives with a particular people rather than merely attending their services.
So, should Christians look for the church nearest to their house or the church closest to the Bible? If those were truly our only two options, the answer would be easy: we should choose faithfulness every time. But perhaps the choice is not always so stark. When God has placed faithful, Bible-believing churches within the communities where we live, there is something deeply fitting about planting our lives among them. The local church is not merely a place where we hear a sermon each week. It is the people with whom we worship, pray, break bread, bear burdens, raise families, serve our neighbors, pursue holiness, and persevere together in the faith. Recovering the priority of the local church therefore requires more than faithfully attending Sunday services. It means ordering our lives so that we can genuinely belong to Christ’s people and invest ourselves in their good. We should certainly look for churches that are close to the Bible. But perhaps we should also value churches close enough for their people to become part of the ordinary fabric of our lives. If Christ loved the church enough to give himself for her, then surely the local church deserves to be one of the defining priorities by which we order our own lives.
Share this:
On Truth and Unity in the Southern Baptist Convention
Last week, Southern Baptists met in Orlando, Florida, for their annual meeting, and one of the most significant items of discussion was the proposed “Truth and Unity Amendment” to the SBC Constitution, introduced by Dr. Albert Mohler. The amendment would add language to Article III concerning the qualifications for churches that wish to remain in friendly cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention. Specifically, it states that a cooperating church “does not act to affirm, appoint, or endorse a woman serving in the office or function of a pastor/elder/overseer, specifically preaching to the assembled congregation.” The rationale behind the proposal is that recent disputes concerning churches with women serving in pastoral functions revealed ambiguity in the Convention’s existing standards of cooperation. Supporters therefore argue that the amendment is necessary to provide greater constitutional clarity. As to the vote, the amendment received strong support from the messengers, passing by a margin of approximately 75 percent to 25 percent. Of course, this vote has generated widespread discussion both within and outside the Southern Baptist Convention. News feeds and social media reels have been filled with reactions, criticisms, endorsements, and predictions about what the amendment will mean for the future of the SBC. However, it seems to me that much of the discussion has been marked by confusion and misunderstanding. Many reactions appear to be responding more to headlines and assumptions than to the actual text of the amendment and the issues it seeks to address. In this post, I am not primarily interested in arguing for or against the Truth and Unity Amendment. Rather, I would simply like to offer a few observations that may help clarify what the amendment is, what it is not, and why some of the most common criticisms may not fully capture the nature of the debate.
First, it must be understood that the Truth and Unity Amendment has not actually been ratified. According to the SBC Constitution, amendments to the Convention’s governing documents must be approved by two consecutive annual meetings before they become part of the Constitution. Last week’s vote in Orlando therefore represents only the first step in a two-year process. While the amendment received strong support from the messengers, it must still receive the required two-thirds approval at next year’s annual meeting in Indianapolis before it can be officially adopted. Until that happens, the amendment remains a proposal rather than a constitutional provision. This distinction is important because much of the public discussion has proceeded as though the matter has already been settled. Several headlines and social media posts have suggested that the Southern Baptist Convention has formally enacted a new constitutional ban on women pastors or women in ministry. Procedurally speaking, however, that is simply not the case. The Convention has expressed its desire to move in that direction, but the constitutional process is not yet complete. There remains another year of discussion, debate, and deliberation before a final decision is reached. Whatever one’s position on the amendment, it is important that our discussions begin with an accurate understanding of where the process currently stands.
Secondly, many headlines and social media reactions seem to proceed as though the Southern Baptist Convention has never had a position on women serving as pastors. However, this simply is not the case. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000, which serves as the Convention’s official statement of faith, already affirms that the office of pastor is limited to qualified men. Article VI states, in part, “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” Nor is this a position that suddenly emerged in the year 2000. Rather, it reflects the historic understanding of Southern Baptists for the vast majority of the Convention’s existence. For this reason, the “Truth and Unity Amendment” is not attempting to create a new doctrine or introduce a novel theological position. The SBC has already spoken clearly on the question of the pastoral office. Instead, the amendment seeks to address a different issue altogether: how the Convention’s existing confession should be applied in questions of friendly cooperation. Put differently, the debate is not whether the SBC possesses a complementarian confession, but whether churches that affirm women in pastoral functions should be regarded as being in friendly cooperation with a convention whose official statement of faith limits the pastoral office to qualified men. The amendment is therefore best understood as an attempt to clarify constitutional standards rather than to establish new theological ones.
A third misunderstanding claims that “the SBC is trying to control local churches.” However, this reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Baptist polity. One of the defining convictions of Southern Baptists is the autonomy of the local church. In other words, every local congregation is free to govern its own affairs under the lordship of Christ and the authority of Scripture. The Southern Baptist Convention possesses no ecclesiastical hierarchy. It cannot appoint or remove pastors, dictate church policies, or seize church property. Regardless of a church’s relationship with the SBC, it remains entirely free to call its own pastors and order its ministry according to its own convictions. For this reason, the Truth and Unity Amendment cannot actually force a church to do anything. A church that wishes to appoint a woman as a pastor remains free to do so. The question at stake is not church governance but denominational cooperation. Here it is important to distinguish between autonomy and cooperation. Just as a local church is free to determine its own practices, so also the Convention is free to determine the parameters of its cooperative fellowship. A church may choose a particular course of action, but the SBC may likewise determine whether that action is compatible with its understanding of friendly cooperation. The amendment, therefore, concerns denominational boundaries rather than denominational control. It seeks to answer the question, “What kinds of churches should cooperate together?” rather than “How should local churches govern themselves?”
Of course, another important clarification concerns women and their roles in the life of the church. As I noted above, several headlines and social media reactions have suggested that the Truth and Unity Amendment amounts to a formal ban on women in ministry. However, this is simply not what the amendment addresses. Southern Baptists have long affirmed that women play vital and indispensable roles in the work of the church. Women serve as missionaries, Sunday school teachers, women’s ministry leaders, counselors, and in countless other capacities. Indeed, the Baptist Faith and Message explicitly states that both men and women are gifted for service in the church. The specific question addressed by the amendment concerns the office of pastor/elder/overseer. The Baptist Faith and Message recognizes two church offices, that of pastor/elder/overseer and that of deacon, and it affirms that the office of pastor is limited to qualified men. This conviction is rooted in passages such as 1 Timothy 2.12 and 1 Timothy 3.1–7 among others, as Southern Baptists have historically understood them. While churches often use titles and ministry descriptions in different ways, the amendment seeks to clarify how the Convention understands the office and functions of a pastor in relation to friendly cooperation. The question, therefore, is not whether women can minister in the church, but whether certain pastoral functions are compatible with the SBC’s understanding of the pastoral office.
Lastly, several critics of the Truth and Unity Amendment have suggested that the amendment represents a distraction from more pressing concerns, particularly the issue of sexual abuse within churches. Some have even argued that Southern Baptists should not devote time and energy to questions of ecclesiology while such serious problems remain unresolved. To be clear, sexual abuse is a genuine evil, and victims deserve protection, justice, accountability, and compassionate care. These concerns should never be minimized, ignored, or treated as secondary matters. Churches and denominational leaders must continue to take them seriously. At the same time, it is important to recognize that these issues are not necessarily in competition with one another. The Southern Baptist Convention already possesses constitutional provisions addressing churches that facilitate abuse or protect abusers, and ongoing efforts to improve accountability should continue. However, the existence of one important issue does not automatically render every other issue unimportant. The Truth and Unity Amendment addresses a different question altogether, namely the Convention’s understanding of the pastoral office and the requirements for friendly cooperation. One may agree or disagree with the amendment itself, but it is not necessary to choose between addressing sexual abuse and discussing ecclesiology. A denomination is capable of addressing multiple concerns at the same time. The real question, therefore, is not whether sexual abuse matters more than ecclesiology, but whether Southern Baptists can pursue faithfulness in both areas simultaneously. I believe the answer to that question is yes.
In conclusion, whatever one’s position on the Truth and Unity Amendment may be, the discussion surrounding it will be far more productive if it is grounded in clarity rather than assumption. As we have seen, much of the public conversation has focused on claims that the amendment has already been ratified, that it establishes a new doctrinal position, that it threatens local church autonomy, that it bans women from ministry altogether, or that it somehow prevents Southern Baptists from addressing other important concerns. Yet none of these claims fully captures what the amendment is actually attempting to accomplish. Christians should strive to understand an issue before reacting to it, especially when that issue touches matters of theology, ecclesiology, and cooperation among churches. Careful reading, charitable engagement, and theological seriousness are always preferable to slogans, headlines, and social media outrage. Before we can decide whether the Truth and Unity Amendment is wise, unwise, necessary, or unnecessary, we must first understand what it actually says and what it is attempting to accomplish. Clarity should always precede controversy.
For further reflection on these issues, see:
On the Spiritual Gift of Pastoral Ministry
On Pastoral Ministry and Job Titles
Share this:
On the Benefit and Value of Denominations
Last week (June 12-13, 2018), we all watched with bated breath as denominational leaders and messengers from local churches across the nation met in Dallas, TX for the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention. To be quite honest, the weeks and months leading up to this year’s annual meeting were trying to say the least. We watched in horror and sadness as several of our top leaders resigned or were removed from their positions due to moral failings. We endured divisiveness and contention in social media outlets as various groups argued over their particular theological and ministerial soap boxes. And we questioned how, or maybe even if, it would possible for our beloved denomination to move forward in its primary purpose, i.e. the proclamation of the Gospel.
Now, looking back, we must say that there is great cause for hope for the future of the Southern Baptist Convention. Many good things were both said and done by our delegates in Dallas, and it seems, in hindsight, that Godly wisdom prevailed. Oh sure, there were some vocal minorities who continued to clamor for their particular pet agenda, but for the most part the Gospel was prioritized, Christian love and unity was maximized, and our churches were energized. However, this raises another question, namely, what is the benefit, the value, of denominational entities? Are they still useful and beneficial for the cause of Christ, or are they more like distractions that divide the body of Christ?
It is no secret that most of the mainline denominations in our country are on the decline, and, over the past 20 years or so, we have seen the exponential proliferation of “non-denominational” churches across the Christian landscape. Some groups even refer to themselves as “pre-denominational” as if they have thrown off the baggage of denominationalism and gone back to the nobler and more biblical way of being and doing church. Still others point to the numerous theological, ministerial, and organizational differences that separate and divide Christians from one another. “Can’t we all just get along?” seems to be the sentiment of the day. After all, didn’t Jesus and the New Testament authors teach us that our unity and love for one another is a primary means by which we display and proclaim the truth of the Gospel?
Living and ministering in the Bible Belt, I am uniquely sensitive to these critiques. Growing up, denominational divisions were like hard lines drawn in the sand which could never be crossed. There seemed to be constant argument over various denominational distinctives. So, it would be very easy for me to succumb to the temptation of believing that denominations are ultimately ploys of the enemy meant to divide us. However, I do believe that denominations are still good and useful in the body of Christ, so in what follows, I want to provide just a few reasons why I believe that denominations are still beneficial and valuable.
First, denominations allow us to embrace our cultural, theological, and ministerial distinctives. There is great diversity within the body of Christ when it comes to how we express and practice our faith in Christ. This diversity is a good thing, because it helps us to realize that the Gospel transcends the particularities of time and place. The simple fact of the matter is that no one person, group, or tradition can claim to have an exhaustive and complete knowledge of God’s word, God’s will, or God’s ways. Differences in belief and practice among Christian denominations are vivid indications that people and churches are grappling with the inspired Word and how God has revealed Himself to us through that Word by His Spirit. So, distinctives should be embraced, cherished, and held dear by those who have done the hard work of studying to show themselves approved.
Secondly, and this follows on the first, denominations force us to listen to, learn from, and love those with whom we differ on the non-essential facets of belief and practice. An oft quoted but wrongly attributed quotation expresses this thought succinctly, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” There are certainly beliefs and practices that are essential to the Christian faith. These essentials define Christian orthodoxy, and any person, group, or church calling themselves Christian must adhere to these essentials. These are most clearly defined in the classic creeds of the church. However, beyond these first order essentials, there is room for discussion, or even passionate debate, all the while grounded in humility and Christian love for one another. There is a great many things Christian denominations can learn from each other, or as Proverbs 27.17 says, “Iron sharpens iron, and one person sharpens another.” Or we might say, “one denomination sharpens another.”
Finally, denominations allow people and churches of like minded belief and practice to pool their resources for the church’s primary mission, namely, the advancement of the kingdom. This is one hallmark of the Southern Baptist Convention that stands out in particular distinction among the many denominational bodies that speckle the Christian landscape. Southern Baptist churches across the country designate a portion of their undesignated receipts to the Cooperative Program, and through this Cooperative Program, the Southern Baptist Convention funds its six seminaries, the International and North American Mission Boards, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Lifeway, and Guidestone. Through this Cooperative Program, smaller churches with limited financial resources are able to join with churches across the nation in a participation that advances the global cause of Christ.
Ultimately, as good and beneficial as denominational bodies are, we must remember that
There is one body and one Spirit, just as you too were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:4-6)
We are all part of the body of Christ, and as a part of that body, we all have our part to play in the advancement of the Kingdom of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. So, let us embrace our unique theological and ecclesiological distinctives, even as we join together for to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ.
