This concept of the church presents it as a voluntary society committed to a specific polity structure and confessional stance. Some groups of this kind have been concerned for evangelistic mission at home or abroad — church growth. Usually they do not have strong and broad ecumenical or social reform concerns — though in succeeding generations, after division, they may develop these (The Christian Reformed Church, some Orthodox Presbyterian leaders).
A second view of the church defines it primarily as the body of Christ, a supernatural organism, in which doctrinal truth is a critically important vitamin to maintain health and growth, and define proper witness to Christ. In this view, whatever part of the body Christians find themselves in, they are concerned for unity, both locally and more broadly.
Division of the body, in this view, is a wound. It is usually traumatic. It drives numbers of Christians away from orthodoxy, and it is often formed around a core of anger, judgment and spiritual pride. It can only be justified by persecution, restraint of ministry, or a time when the ship starts sailing under an heretical flag (Unitarian Universalism).
Which view of the church, and the function of orthodoxy within it, is biblical? John 17:20-21 says that division among Christians is a negative evangelistic witness to the world. Romans 12:5-8 defines the church as Christ’s body, and that view is echoed and expanded by 1 Corinthians 12.
Most significant is Ephesians 4:1-16. This begins by defining “gracious unity,” echoing the other passages cited. Verses 13-16 state the goal of unity, the fully developed body of Christ, in which all parts contribute their gifts — their enzymes — to enrich the body. The function of truth here is to promote unified growth, as members are “speaking the truth in love.”
A unified body is the goal of the church’s history. “Gracious unity” is a powerful evangelistic witness, as well as promoting spiritual health. Ungracious separation splinters the church, and does not advance missions as some have claimed. As Jesus said, “He that does not gather with me, scatters” (Matthew 12:30).
Is there no constructive function then for separated parts of Christ’s body formed to demonstrate and promote truth? They do play a role, in setting forth clear standards of biblical truth — especially if they become increasingly gracious and concerned for the broader church. Then they become “sodalities” within the larger “modalities” (denominations), as Latourette and Ralph Winter indicate.
The direction of groups is as important as their position. Are they aiming their efforts in the direction of the building up — not only their own members, but the larger body of Christ? — all of those who can say “Jesus is Lord,” which Paul says is the defining mark of Christians (1 Corinthians 12:3).
John Mackay, the great theologian and church statesman, aimed his work in both directions. He wrote The Presbyterian Way of Life to define why his church had a reason to exist, and he wrote Ecumenics to define the need to seek a broader unity. This kind of double aim is what Presbyterians need today.
Posted Nov. 19, 2003
Richard Lovelace of Northampton, Mass., is a professor emeritus of church history at Gordon-Conwell Seminary.
Send your comment on this guest viewpoint to The Outlook.
Please give your full name and hometown.
