November 1997
Volume 31, Number 1
Thirty years ago, in October 1967, the first issue of the Protestant Reformed Theological Journal appeared. The Journal has undergone several changes in the years which followed. For several years it was mimeographed. The first issues were circulated among ministers and other interested members of the Protestant Reformed Churches. Today the Journal is sent to a much wider audience, which includes clergy and lay persons of many denominations located in many different countries. It is sent as well to a number of college, university, and seminary libraries throughout the world.
One thing has not changed during the past thirty years. That one thing is the purpose of the Journal. The purpose of publishing this Journal, as Prof. Herman Hanko wrote in his first editorial, is to contend earnestly for the faith in a time of great apostasy. This purpose, Prof. Hanko noted, has a positive and a negative aspect. Negatively, the founders of the Journal were determined to expose the many errors threatening the church; and, positively, they were determined to develop the truth of Holy Scripture for the sake of the church.
This remains the purpose of this magazine. May God give us grace to continue in this in days to come.
During its first thirty years Prof. Hanko has capably served as editor of the Journal. Prof. Hanko is retiring, and the undersigned has been appointed as his successor. We will miss Prof. Hanko's faithful, competent leadership as editor. We wish him God's richest blessings in his retirement years. We also hope that from time to time Prof. Hanko can continue to write articles and review books for the Journal.
In this issue Prof. Engelsma continues his translation of a treatise on the doctrine of the covenant, written by the late Rev. Henry Danhof. John Hooper contributes an article on the unity of the church. Undersigned continues his series on cross-cultural missions.
Robert D. Decker
Return to Table of Contents
The title of this installment in our series on cross-cultural missions is taken from a very significant book by Jonathan J. Bonk, who is professor of mission studies at Winnipeg Bible College and Theological Seminary.1 We intend to give a rather detailed summary of this book. It is our conviction that any preacher or church contemplating getting involved in foreign mission work can ill afford to ignore Bonk's book.
The main point Bonk makes in the book is nicely illustrated by
a former missionary's experience:
The most embarrassing moment in my missionary career occurred near the beginning, 33 years ago, when our baggage arrived in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Its arrival had been delayed for four months due to a dock workers' strike that paralyzed the port. When the long-awaited baggage finally came to the door it gave us mixed emotions.
My wife and I and our infant daughter had arrived on the field in early May. We moved into a house the national church had rented for us and we purchased everything needed in Colombo. Our furniture was made by local carpenters. The only imported items we purchased were fans, a small stove, a refrigerator, and a water filter. Besides that we had only the contents of our four suitcases.
We were getting along fine, when word came that our baggage had finally been unloaded from the ship. As soon as it was cleared by customs it was loaded onto five bullock carts for delivery to our home. How well I remember the sight of the bullocks trudging slowly up the road. The combined load consisted of no less than 18 barrels and two big crates. On the one hand we were excited, for it was like "Christmas in August".... But on the other hand there was something terribly disturbing about it. We kept saying to ourselves, "We don't need all this stuff. Why did we buy it in the first place?"
Our neighbors turned out in force to see what the Americans were getting. As we opened the crates and barrels by the side of the house, our neighbors stared in wonderment. How rich and important this young couple must be to be able to afford five cart-loads of marvelous things!
For four months my wife and I had been building relationships and seeking to identify with the community. Our blond baby daughter provided a natural opener for conversations and a jump start for new relationships. Neighbors could see that we were not altogether different from other young parents trying to raise a child, solve everyday problems, and meet basic needs.
But then suddenly, we were discovered to be what some probably suspected we were all along-filthy rich Americans who could fill their home with every conceivable comfort and adornment. A thousand sermons could not undo the damage done that day. It would have been better for our ministry if the ship had dropped our barrels and crates in the Indian Ocean .2
We are certain that Dr. Greenway's experience is not atypical of that of a great many missionaries in foreign fields. The affluence of Western missionaries creates a very serious problem for their work. The problem is not the fact that missionaries live extravagantly by Western standards. Bonk points out that most missionaries do not live extravagantly. In fact they "make do" with a whole lot less than their relatives and fellow church members in North America. By Western standards of living, missionaries "sacrifice" a great deal when they leave home and move to a Two-Thirds World country to preach the gospel.
Prof. Harry F. Wolcott having observed American missionaries
in one part of Africa concluded,
"Problems related to money continue to plague and obsess many urban missionaries. They always have too much of it, and they never have enough. Their standard of living makes them seem wealthy wherever they go and results in constant conflict for them when they hold back so much of what they have for themselves. An anthropologist critical of missionaries recalled the old saw that they set out to do "good" and often end up doing "well." 3
Wolcott further observed, "On the contrary, their (missionaries, RDD) material and economic resources were seldom, if ever, adequate-and often scarce; their possessions were meager; and their spending habits with regard to food and clothing frugal to a fault." 4 The problem, therefore, is not that the missionaries live extravagantly.
The problem is that relative to the economic condition of the peoples of the Two-Thirds World there is a great disparity between the missionaries and the nationals among whom they work. The simple, disturbing fact is that Western missionaries, by comparison with the Two-Thirds World in which they work, are filthy rich. This is easily illustrated by a comparison of the Gross National Products (GNP) of Western "missionary-sending" countries like the United States and the GNP of "missionary-receiving" countries of the Two-Thirds World. The GNP of the United States in 1984 was 15,490. The GNP of Zaire was 140, India 260, Kenya 300, Nigeria 770.5
The relative affluence of Western missionaries is a fact. It is also true that the economic/material gulf between the Western nations and the Two-Thirds World is widening. And at this point (1991) very little has been done to correct the problem .6
Beginning in the early nineteenth century, if not earlier, Western civilization believed in progress with the Western nations in the vanguard. Colonialism (the British and Dutch empires, for example) played a large role in this. The superior European culture/life-style was imported to the inferior, uncivilized lands. The mission of the colonists was considered to be civilizing the uncivilized, "taming the wild natives." The missionaries who came to the colonies regarded themselves as emissaries of progress! Mission compounds were built employing hundreds of natives. Missionaries needed lots of equipment, tools, and food supplies sufficient for several years. All this "stuff" had to be transported, and it took hundreds of natives to do the work.
It is, as Bonk points out, no different today. Whereas one hundred years ago missionaries imported their "stuff," today they just buy it. And, missionaries need lots of "stuff." They need transportation (automobiles, planes, boats, motorcycles, e.g.). They need computers, fax machines, and other office equipment. They need air conditioners. Missionaries purchase these things at exorbitantly high prices. They think little of paying $1.00 to $3.00 for a gallon of gasoline.
The result of this is that, though the standard of living of the missionaries may be frugal by Western standards, it is far beyond even the wildest dreams of the nationals.
Missionaries still regard themselves as emissaries of progress. Only the terminology has changed. Now we no longer speak of progress, civilizing the uncivilized, or "taming the wild natives," but we speak of the developed countries of the West and the undeveloped countries of the Two-Thirds World. Along with preaching the gospel, the missionaries' task is to help the underdeveloped peoples reach the level of the developed countries.
The relative affluence of the Western missionaries must also
be understood against the background of racism, according to Bonk.
In the nineteenth century European/North American whites regarded
themselves as superior to all other races, especially the blacks.
A missionary delegate to the Liverpool Conference in 1860 remarked,
"The Indian (India) looks upon himself as being of an inferior
race; and his desire is to rise as much as possible to the level
of the white man.... Civilized men should therefore go amongst
them, men who will be looked up to by them ... and from whose
lips they will expect words of wisdom."8
Wrote a Scottish missionary in 1863,
In estimating the vile, sunk, and wretched moral condition of the heathen, it matters not whether we look to China, Japan, Burma, or Hindoostand, lands in which a barbaric civilization has existed longside of the most childish superstition, or to Africa, whose Negro tribes have, since the days of their father Ham, kept sinking, from age to age, unaided, until a dreary and bloody fetishism has swallowed up all, and made them the lowest of beings that are called men. Look where we will in heathen lands, we behold the infidelity ... and piety." 9
The nineteenth century missionaries conceived of their task in terms of raising the backward, inferior, heathen to the level of Western civilization. Accomplishing this, they thought they would be able to "Christianize" the inferior heathen peoples and nations.
Little has changed today, except for the terminology. It is not politically correct to speak of heathen, Negroes, barbarians, etc. But, American economic growth and prosperity are possible, desirable, even necessary for the poor, undeveloped countries and peoples of the Two-Thirds World. And, the American life-style is driven by consumerism (more wealth, more and better products and services, etc.).
All this has affected the missionary enterprise. If we can raise the standard of living among the underdeveloped countries in which we work, we can pave the way for the preaching of the gospel and the planting of churches. Meanwhile the standard of living keeps rising. Missionaries continually need so much more today. A computer, for example, can do so much more than a typewriter, a plane is much faster than a train, and a four-wheel drive vehicle is better than a motorcycle, etc. This only widens the economic/material gap between the underdeveloped and the developed nations.
The question Bonk poses at this point is, "Shouldn't missionaries be comfortable?" There are economic arguments for missionary affluence. "The cheapest mission is the mission which can keep its missionaries the longest."11 Therefore, the argument runs, missionaries must be properly housed and fed and provided with adequate medical care. These are costly necessities, but they enable the missionaries to work without distraction. Most missionaries who withdraw from the work, it is pointed out, do so on account of ill health, and they leave during the first term. The cost of preparing the missionary (education, orientation, learning a foreign language, etc., all of which can take three to six years) is lost.
Hence, the argument for affluence is: a) The cheapest missionary is a live one. b) A live one is a healthy one. c) A healthy one is a comfortable one. d) A comfortable one is a missionary whose standard of living most closely approximates that of his fellow saints at home. The conclusion? Wealth, relatively speaking, and health go together. Missionaries need comfortable homes, good furniture, good food, a decent means of transportation (preferably an automobile), vacations, good office equipment, etc., etc.
There is also what is called domestic rationale for missionary affluence. Missionaries' children (MKs, hereafter) need a proper education. Typically there are three ways to provide this proper education. If the mission is large enough, a school is set up and teachers are imported from back home. Many missionary families send the children to boarding schools.12 The third way is to send the children back home for their education.13 Home schooling in rare cases may also be an option. Generally, however, it is not practiced because it takes too much time for the missionary who, after all, ought to be doing mission work.14 However the church provides for the education of the children of her missionaries, it is very costly. Only a very tiny minority of the nationals can even consider the possibility of providing what Westerners consider an adequate education for their children. Thus, educating MKs contributes to missionary affluence. As necessary as it is, educating the MKs serves to widen the economic gulf between the missionaries and the nationals.
There is also a social rationale for missionary affluence. In
1880 a certain Dr. E. J. Southon produced a pamphlet for the London
Mission Society in which he wrote,
In his travels, the missionary should always present the appearance of a gentleman. There is no necessity for discarding civilised habits because civilisation is left behind; on the contrary, it is for him to carry with him the impress of a society better than that to which he is going; hence, he should always be neat and clean in his appearance, and scrupulously careful that his garb is tidy. An untidy European will surely be criticized by the gentlemanly Arab, if not by natives. 15
The point here is that just because he is Western he occupies a higher status both in his own thinking and in that of the nationals.
The close connection between the missionaries and the highly
visible power and wealth of the West makes it extremely difficult
for them to disassociate themselves from the status and roles
assigned to the privileged. Church Missionary Society missionaries
tried to do this one hundred years ago. The result was that they
were regarded by the nationals as either hypocritical or failed
Europeans. The missionary who attempts to "go native"
today will at best be regarded with suspicion. Speaking to this
point an American missionary in Peru wrote, "When we lived
in Ecuador, we did 'go native' and the local people just thought
that we were crazy." He went on to explain,
They have a conception of 'gringo' and in order to gain their respect, we needed to meet their expectations, build a nice house, get a better vehicle, etc. Too close an identification with native culture diminished our standing in the community, and therefore any message we may have had for them. 16
Bonk concludes, and correctly so, "Aversion to the unpleasant side effects associated with diminished standing in a community is indeed a powerful rationale for maintaining and even increasing Western missionary affluence." 17
Finally, there are strategic arguments for missionary affluence. The industrial revolution dramatically increased the wealth of the Western nations. Thus the industrial revolution enabled missionaries from the West to reach the ends of the earth. The industrial revolution also provided the means and technology to facilitate mission work. The point is that the wealth and technology greatly enhance the missionaries' work and effectiveness in every sphere: education, literature, service and/or support, development, aid/relief, medicine, media, and more. It takes tons of money to provide hospitals and their equipment, vehicles, computers, radios, airplanes, etc. And the West has the money to provide these goods and services! The argument is, missionaries "need" all these things, along with servants, to do the Lord's work efficiently and effectively and speedily.
Not only so, but missionary riches make a big impression on the nationals. They watch the missionaries build their houses and do their gardening and other activities and conclude that the missionaries are superior to them in knowledge, energy, and wealth. And, therefore, the missionaries, in the minds of the nationals, are worth listening to on all subjects including religion and Christianity.
Therefore missionary affluence is defended by the missionaries.
This is powerfully illustrated by Bonk's quotation of the remarks
of an American missionary in Peru who said,
While committed to a Peruvian church staffed by Peruvians, we find that Peruvians will listen to a gringo and give him much more credence than one of their own. So, while we have a few Peruvian members in our mission, they are less persuasive in dealing with their own people than we, the rich, educated foreigners are!"18
1. Jonathan J. Bonk, Missions and Money: Affluence as a Western Missionary Problem (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1991). Hereafter we will refer to this work by the author's name, Bonk. Return
2. Roger S. Greenway, "Eighteen Barrels and Two Big Crates," Evangelical Missions Quarterly, vol. 28, 126-127 (April, 1992). Return
3. Quoted by Bonk, p. 12. Return
4. Quoted by Bonk, pp. 12-13. Return
8. Quoted by Bonk, p. 21. Return
9. Quoted by Bonk, pp. 23-24. Return
11. Bonk, p. 31. Return
13. The Christian Reformed Church provides Mk with tuition free education at its denominational college, Calvin College. Return
14. While doing mission work in Jamaica for the Protestant Reformed Churches Rev. and Mrs. Wilbur Bruinsma home schooled their children with the help of several teachers from the Christian Schools in Michigan. This worked out quite well for the Bruinsmas. Return
15. Quoted by Bonk, pp. 37-38. Return
16. Quoted by Bonk, p. 38. Return
17. Bonk, p. 38. Return
18. Bonk, p. 41. Return
Return to Table of Contents
Translator's note: In this second section of his treatise on the covenant of grace, Henry Danhof gives a brief, but helpful account of the history of the doctrine of the covenant, especially in the Reformed tradition. I have retained, in the text, his references to sources. These references appear in parentheses. I have not translated the titles, since most, if not all, of them are available only in the Dutch language. Some who can read Dutch, however, may benefit from knowing these references. The footnotes are mine. Occasionally, I thought it necessary to give the original word or phrase. These appear in the footnotes.
In a dogma-historical sense the doctrine of the covenant dates from the time of the Reformation. It is almost exclusively a plant out of Reformed soil. As an integral part of dogmatics, it does not appear in the church fathers, the Roman Catholics, the Socinians, and the Lutherans. Nor is it found in the Anabaptists and the Baptists.1 The real covenant-conception has been developed only in the Reformed churches.
Especially in Switzerland, the Reformers came into conflict with the Anabaptists. This external circumstance served as a goad to a deeper examination of the covenant-conception. Anabaptism did away with almost the entire Scripture, especially the Old Testament. Having no eye for our natural solidarity, it held fast to an existence of isolationism and individualism2 and fled the sphere of natural life as much as possible. It wanted a congregation of the truly regenerated and an immediate, perfectly holy life in the Spirit. The Anabaptist had no eye for the truth of the means of grace. Baptism is only a sign of one's own personal faith and may, therefore, be administered only to those who obviously have been regenerated. As a result, there is no place for infant baptism. The Old Testament, therefore, must be shoved far into the background in relation to the New Testament, as well as the covenant-relation in regard to the reality of being a child of God. 3
With the maintenance of infant baptism, the Reformers asked concerning the connection between the Old and New Testament, as well as the significance of the means of grace. Thus, they had joined issue not only with Rome and Anabaptism, but at the same time with various movements of their time which were spiritually related to the earlier Gnosticism and the different Jewish sects. The church of the Reformation saw itself called to explain the Christian religion both in connection with and at the same time in its distinction from the religion of Israel. This it did in the doctrine of the covenant. This makes plain that the covenant-conception is no Reformed fancy or subtlety, but the most beautiful fruit of the theology of the whole Christian church.
The focus in this controversy was undoubtedly infant baptism. The Reformation had unanimously rejected Rome's doctrine that the sacraments communicate grace and righteousness and had proclaimed the Word as the chief means of grace. Exactly for this reason, however, the Reformers had to look for another ground for infant baptism, especially in the controversy with the Anabaptists. This, all of the Reformers found in their conception of the sacraments as signs and seals of God's grace. In this way, all preserved the baptism of infants. Concerning the question about the cause of God's grace in infants, however, there was sharp divergence of thought, notably between Luther and Calvin, especially after the controversy with the Anabaptists. Luther and his followers really fell back into the sacramentalism of Rome. According to Luther, the sacrament must also work that which the Word works, although not without that Word. Therefore, the ecclesiastical administration of baptism again had regeneration as the effect, and baptism again was absolutely necessary. With this teaching, the door of the authentic Lutheran system was closed to the development of the real covenant-conception.
Calvin, on the other hand, maintained the existence of the church from the beginning and the essential oneness of the testaments, in opposition to the Anabaptists (Institutes, 2.10,11). In connection with this, he maintained the essential oneness of Israel and the Christian church. According to Calvin, there is in reality only one testament, although as regards administration one must distinguish between shadow and fulfillment. In a twofold administration, the Messiah is really one, and faith is one, as well as the way of salvation. The continuity of the congregation finds its origin in the fact that grace continuously works in the line of generations. Against Rome and Luther, Calvin put the covenant of God behind Word and sacraments. That covenant is also the ground of infant baptism. Thus, Calvin's view of the covenant, which does not govern his system, but comes up merely in an appendix, received the form of a doctrine of the testaments. Many, both before and after the Synod of Dordt, have followed him in this. The real covenant-idea then is less developed. Probably it is also because of Calvin's example that the doctrine of the covenant receives such scanty treatment in the Belgic Confession and in the Canons of Dordt.
The covenant-conception is much more prominent in the Zurich theologians. Dr. G. Vos calls the Zurichers the predecessors of the federal theologians in the narrower sense, inasmuch as the covenant became for them the governing idea for the practice of the Christian life (De Verbondsleer in de Geref. Theologie). According to Vos, the well-known authors of our Catechism, Olevianus and Ursinus, stood in the closest relationship to the Zurich theologians. This has certainly influenced the composition of the Heidelberg Catechism. Although the Catechism does not devote much attention to the concept of the covenant formally, still in a practical way that idea (of the covenant) definitely permeates the Catechism.
We find the covenant-conception more beautifully developed in our "Form for the Administration of Baptism." According to this Reformed liturgical form, believers with their children, although conceived and born in sin and, therefore, children of wrath, have an eternal covenant of grace with God. Wherefore, they must then also be baptized. Therefore, they also have fellowship with the triune God, are called to a new obedience, may fight and overcome sin, the devil, and his entire kingdom, and extol and praise the God of the covenant forever.
Indeed, these are precious thoughts!
What they mean for us concerning the real covenant-idea depends on our own understanding of the concept "covenant." Is the covenant, which is referred to here, essential, or merely incidental? Do we have an eternal covenant of grace with God, or does grace come to us by means of the covenant? The expression, "whereas in all covenants, there are contained two parts," appears to allude to the latter. In this case, we would have to say with Maccovius that the covenant between God and man is not a real covenant, but an arrangement similar to other covenants: a treaty in which God promises something to man, e.g., life, and in turn requires something from him as a condition, e.g., obedience (Godgel. Ondersch., chap. XII). After the fall, God then has repeated that same covenant (that He supposedly established with Adam), in order to teach us our duty, admonish us to obedience, etc. In this case, although in my struggle against Satan and sin I may rejoice, "God has confirmed a covenant with me in the spiritual strife! The triune God is at my side!" I still do not have a real covenant with God.
But such is indeed the case if I say, with Dr. B. Wielenga, that this covenant is no appearance, but adorable reality; no pale imitation of a human covenant, but the real and original covenant that is rooted in God's eternal decree 4; the highest reality and truth, which is the perfect pattern for all human activity (Ons Doopsformulier, p. 64). On that view, the baptism formula says to me that, according to its essence, the covenant is friendship between God and man. In this case, the believer bears in baptism the sign and banner of King Jesus. He fights on behalf of the cause of the Son of God. In the arena of this life, he is of God's party. He is such, above all, because he is God's friend. The choice between these two opinions depends, in my view, on the meaning which we ourselves attach to the term "covenant" in our baptism formula.
The Westminster Confession of Faith goes further into the covenant-idea
as such. Chapter VII, 1-4 reads:
The distance between God and the creature is so great that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He hath been pleased to express by way of covenant. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ, the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it therein bequeathed.
Concerning the real idea of the covenant, obviously two thoughts are here intertwined. The first sentence describes the covenant as means of fellowship between God and man. The covenant-idea is then identical with the idea of religion itself. The following sentences really present the covenant as means to the highest blessedness and salvation of men. The covenant of works serves for the reception of something that man in Paradise did not yet possess, at least, not yet unchangeably; the covenant of grace is a means for the redemption and salvation of men. In the latter case, the covenant is something incidental, something that conceivably might not have been. It is a kind of conditional promise.
Also the Westminster Shorter Catechism gives this representation.
To the 12th question, the answer is given:
When God had created man, He entered into a covenant with him upon condition of perfect obedience, forbidding him to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, upon pain of death.
To the 20th
question, treating of the covenant of grace, there is the answer:
God, having out of mere good pleasure, from all eternity elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer.
Here too the covenant is understood as means to the highest blessedness of men and to the realizing of election.
The Irish Articles of Religion (1615) likewise speak of the covenant of works as a conditional promise of God. The Walcheren Articles (1693) use the covenants for an explanation of our depravity in Adam and of our redemption in Christ.
According to Dr. A. Kuyper, the covenant is essentially an alliance between God and man against every actual and possible hostile power (Dict. Dogm., Loc. de foedere). The making of a covenant, according to him, is an act of friendship (Gem. Gratie, I, 287). Whether now the essential idea of the covenant must be sought in the friendship out of which the alliance arises, or in the alliance in which the friendship takes form against the mutual enemy, is less obvious.
According to this historical survey, the idea of the covenant has been understood as:
a. a means to men's highest blessedness, redemption, and salvation;
b. the essence of religion;
c. an alliance arising from friendship.
We adduce yet a few quotations demonstrating each of these conceptions.
A. Hellenbroek gives this answer to the question, what the covenant of grace is: "The covenant of grace is that way along which God through Christ becomes the possession5 of the sinner, and he becomes the possession of God (Voorb. der Godd. Waarheden, p. 44)
T. Bos gives a similar definition (Genadeverbond en Bondzegelen).
M. J. Bosma expresses himself concerning the covenant thus:
What was the covenant of works?
A covenant is an agreement. The covenant of works was an agreement between God and Adam, wherein God promised eternal life to Adam and all his posterity upon condition of perfect obedience to the probationary command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, God threatening that Adam would die in case he broke this command. The elements of this covenant, therefore, were:
1. a condition expressed: perfect obedience;
2. a promise implied: eternal life;
3. a penalty threatened: death.
What is the covenant of grace?
It is the gracious agreement between God and his people, whereby God promises them complete salvation in the way of faith, and they accept in faith (Exposition of Reformed Doctrine, pp. 91, 111).
These quotations express a view of the covenant as not really a covenant at all6 ; as a means to men's highest blessedness, redemption, and salvation; and as a conditional promise.
In the Westminster Confession, as well as in men such as Vos, Bavinck (Geref. Dogm., II, pp. 611-614), Kuyper, B. Wielenga, and others, we find the conception that the covenant is the essence of religion. Kuyper is representative: "The covenant-idea is not something that is added to religion, but it is identical with religion. It is the idea of religion itself" (Dict. Dogm., Loc. de foedere, p. 69).
Vos says, "Friendship is the essence of the covenant-relation" (Compendium van de Systematische Theologie). One finds similar expressions in almost all well-known Reformed writers. H. Hoeksema recently spoke in the same vein in his articles in the Banner of April 10 and 17. Also according to him, the covenant is essentially friendship.7
How has it come about that there are these three views of the covenant in the Reformed tradition? In my opinion, this has happened in the following way. After the break with Rome, especially Anabaptism occasioned the search for a biblical ground for infant baptism. This led to clearer insight into the connection of the generations of men. All men share in Adam's guilt. In the same manner, although in a more limited sphere, there is also communion in the righteousness and life of Christ. The tendency was to view Adam and Christ more as our representatives than as covenant friends 8 of God. The term "covenant-head" was applied to both. In our relationship to the head of the covenant was seen the real covenant-relation. Thus, one could explain the common depravity of the children of men, as well as the continuity of the working of the grace of God in the line of generations. One also had a ground for infant baptism.
However, that thinking almost inevitably had to result in confusing the covenant of works with the probationary command. Generally, the covenant of works was considered to be a conditional promise of life. However, seeing that Adam already possessed life and, therefore, did not have to obtain it for himself or for his descendants, the promise of God was made to refer to the unchangeable life of eternal glory. The covenant must serve for the obtaining of salvation in the highest degree. The promise, condition, and threat remain. To the question, why Adam would in fact be guilty, if he did not desire that higher life for himself, the answer was that such was Adam's obligation toward God. Because God willed that Adam should be partaker of the unchangeable life of salvation in the highest degree, Adam must, for God's sake, desire it for himself and his descendants. "Covenant" is figurative, a manner of speaking, no reality. It serves merely to indicate the obligation that men have toward God.
However, that left the special and very frequent use of that term unexplained. Therefore, others sought something real in the term and concept "covenant." It is impossible for man to enjoy God in His infinite exaltation. The worship of God is possible only if God condescends to man and raises him up to Himself. That explains the creation of man after the image of God. Religion is fellowship with God, and the covenant is the essence of true religion.
This also really implies that the real covenant-relation is not our relationship to Adam or Christ. Rather, the covenant-relation is identical with the relationship in which, through Adam or Christ, we stand to God. The covenant points to our fellowship with God. It is, therefore, not first of all the question, what the head of the covenant, Adam or Christ, does for those who are included in him, but what he is and does in his relation to God. Rightly understood, it may be said that he does not have to earn life for us. Rather, he has to realize the covenant of God. He is the servant and covenant friend of God. He must serve God, but unconstrained, according to his own free choice, as a friend. God's servant is God's child, and the child resembles his father; they are friends. Religion is fellowship, covenant-fellowship, friendship.
(to be continued)
Return to Table of Contents
1. Danhof distinguishes a third, related group: "de Doopsgezinden." Return
2. Danhof has "zandkorrel bestaan," literally, 'grain of sand existence.' Return
3. That Danhof subjects Anabaptism to penetrating, severe criticism is ironic. In the conflict over common grace that would soon follow, the Christian Reformed foes of Danhof and Herman Hoeksema would charge them with the error of Anabaptism. In 1922, Jan Karel Van Baalen would publish against them the booklet, "De Loochening der Gemeene Gratie: Gereformeerd of Doopersch? ("The Denial of Common Grace: Reformed or Anabaptist?") Van Baalen's anwer to his question was emphatically, "Doopersch." Danhof and Hoeksema would respond with, "Niet Doopersch maar Gereformeerd" ("Not Anabaptist but Reformed"). Return
4. Danhof is here denying that the biblical covenant of grace owes its origin to, is fashioned after, and is to be understood in light of earthly covenants among men. The importance of this denial cannot be emphasized too strongly. It is widespread today to assume that the covenant revealed in Scripture, especially between Jehovah and Old Testament Israel, originates in and must be explained according to various ancient, near-eastern treaties and covenants. The Presbyterian theologian, Meredith G. Kline, has been influential in introducing this notion into conservative Presbyterian and Reformed churches. In his By Oath Consigned (Eerdmans, 1968), Kline has written: "Now since in certain notable instances, particularly but not exclusively in the Mosaic covenants, it pleased the Lord of Israel to describe his covenant relationship to his people according to the pattern of these vassal treaties, no other conclusion is warranted than that 'covenant' in these instances denoted at the formal level the same kind of relationship as did the vassal covenants on which they were modelled" (p. 21). See also Treaty of the Great King, with its discussion of "suzerainty treatises" (Eerdmans, 1963). Danhof repudiates the notion, root and branch. Apart from its derivation of the holiest things of the people of God from idolatrous, profane nations, it puts us on the wrong track in understanding the nature of the covenant of God with His people. Not old records of treaties among or within ungodly nations, but divine revelation in Holy Scripture must make known to us what the covenant of grace essentially is. The life of Jehovah with Israel, and of Israel with Jehovah, is not patterned after the life of the nations, but after the life of God. Return
7. Hoeksema is the one Christian Reformed colleague mentioned by Danhof in this history of the doctrine of the covenant. As Danhof indicates, in 1919 (when Danhof gave the address on the covenant) both he and Hoeksema had rejected the view of the covenant that had become standard in the Christian Reformed Church and were developing the conception of the covenant as a bond of fellowship. Which of them might have been "father" to this conception is an intriguing question. Hoeksema himself related that upon graduating from Calvin Seminary in 1915 he was certain that the doctrine of the covenant taught by Prof. William Heyns-the covenant as conditional contract-was erroneous, but was uncertain, what the truth of the covenant might be. Within a few years of the publication of Danhof's treatise on the covenant, Danhof and Hoeksema were battling together in the Christian Reformed Church for the truth of particular grace. Shortly thereafter, virtually simultaneously, both were cast out of the Christian Reformed Church for their united opposition to the doctrine of common grace which the Christian Reformed Church adopted as official church dogma in 1924. The subsequent sad separation between the two was described in my introduction to this translation of Danhof's work on the covenant (Protestant Reformed Theological Journal 29, no. 2, April, 1996: 51-61). Return
8. bondgenooten. Return
Return to Table of Contents
John Hooper lives near the city of Plymouth on the south coast of England. He was brought up in Arminianism, but over the years the Lord led him to embrace the doctrines of the Reformed faith. This involved a rethinking of ecclesiology, particularly a change in view from Independentism to an understanding of Scripture's teaching on the unity of the church.
The article was not written with the intention of it being published in the Journal, but the editor thought it an important contribution from one who knows both sides of the question and has firsthand experience of Independentism.
One must, as he reads the article, remember that it is not written as an abstract essay on the church. It is written within the context of the ecclesiastical situation in England, where Independentism is, for the church, a way of life. It is written out of the conviction that Independentism is wrong and that the hope for the church in England lies in part in abandoning this dead-end street in order to seek earnestly the unity of Christ's church. While it will have particular meaning to our readers in the United Kingdom, it will be of value also in this country, where more and more people, disillusioned with the apostasy in their own denominations, are opting for the dangerous position of Independentism.
While the author is a microbiology technician in a hospital in Plymouth, he has made Reformed and Presbyterian theology an object of intense study. He is also the editor and publisher of a magazine with the name, "The Tamar Reformed Witness." The paper is his contribution to a witness of the Reformed faith in the southwest of England.
Herman Hanko
The expression "church unity" is viewed by many evangelical and Reformed people today with understandable suspicion. Being a term which is almost exclusively associated with the ecumenical movement, it conjures up pictures of main-line denominations striving to bury their theological differences and merging to form ever larger 'church' organizations. One can see as the ultimate end of this movement reunion of the nominal Protestant churches with Rome and the formation of a one-world church having the pope at its head. Certainly all talk of church unity in this sense is off the agenda for Christians and churches who seek to be governed by the Word of God.
There is a danger, however, that in our eagerness to condemn the false we also overlook the true. It may be that we even condemn the true with the false. As a reaction against ecumenism the tendency very often is for evangelical churches to adopt a position of independence, eschewing formal ties with other churches of like mind.
In addition to those churches which have been historically independent, the last thirty or so years have seen many ministers and churches in the UK withdrawing from the main denominations over doctrinal issues and maintaining an independent existence. For some this has involved paying a high material price. One can sympathize with their reluctance to become embroiled again in denominational issues. Their fears of theological compromise, which is so much a part of main-line denominational life, are perfectly understandable. But the question arises, do the results of this surge in independency really commend it as a God-honoring alternative? And more to the point, is it biblical?
It is sad, yet true to say, that as the thinking Christian takes a step back to survey the evangelical/Reformed church scene in Britain today, all he sees is confusion. He sees a hotchpotch of churches, each loudly claiming loyalty to the Scriptures, yet each going its own way and doing its own thing. Surely the time has come to ask whether this situation brings glory to God. Is this what Paul really means by decency and order? Is this the situation that prevailed in the days of the early church as, led by the Holy Spirit, the apostles established churches throughout Asia Minor and Europe?
It seems to me that while we have been quick to condemn the false unity of the ecumenical movement, and rightly so, we have been strangely silent in promoting the true unity revealed in the Scriptures. This study is an attempt to break that silence and to present what I am increasingly convinced is the biblical teaching on the unity of the church, particularly as it is expressed in her life and government. May it encourage the thoughtful reader to search the Scriptures for himself and prayerfully consider the issues with a view to applying them to our own needy times.
In essence the church is a perfect unity. The Bible teaches us that this is true despite all the apparent evidence to the contrary. Whatever we may see around us and experience in our own lives of divisions and strife amongst Christians and churches, it remains ever true that the church of Jesus Christ is one. She is made up of the elect children of God, each foreknown and chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, from every nation, tribe, and tongue, of every generation, gathered together into one. In His electing work God did not choose for Himself a disordered rag-bag of individuals, He chose a church, a single, structured, living organism to be understood spiritually as one united whole, in Christ.
Scripture uses many vivid figures of speech to illustrate this truth and bring it home to us clearly. The church is described as one flock of many sheep, a house, a temple of many stones fitly framed together (see John 10:16; I Pet. 2; Eph. 2:11-22; Eph. 4:15,16). Above all, she is the glorious body of Christ, one entire, perfect body comprised of many members, each having his proper place and rule in the body, together constituting one organic whole: "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ…" (I Cor. 12:12ff.; see also Rom. 12:4,5; I Cor. 10:17; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 4:4; Eph. 5:30).
The subject of our study, then, is nothing short of the unity of Christ, and His is a perfect, unblemished unity that cannot be divided (I Cor. 1:13).
This being the case, we must emphasize, as does Scripture itself, that the unity of Christ's body is a unity that must be visibly expressed on earth. Again and again the Holy Spirit, through the apostolic writers, exhorts the people of God to unity.
News had evidently reached Paul that there were divisions at Corinth: "…it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren,… that there are contentions among you." He condemns this open warfare as carnality. They were still babes in Christ, or at least behaving as babes. He continues, "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (I Cor. 1:11,10). Again, as he takes leave of them in his second letter, Paul reminds them of their calling: "Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you" (II Cor. 13:11).
In writing to the Philippians, Paul tells them of the joy they bring to his soul, but it is a joy that is as yet incomplete. He admonishes them, in order that his joy might attain its full measure, "that ye be like minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind" (Phil. 2:2).
Thus Paul was at pains to promote unity and to encourage the saints to be of one mind and to live at peace with one another. The local church was not to be a place of discord and dissent but of peace, brotherly love, and unity. Believers were to be "kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love" (Rom. 12:10). "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints" (I Cor. 14:33). Peace is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22) and ought to pervade all His gathered churches. "Let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body" (Col. 3:15).
But our subject is not primarily the unity of the local church. We will take that as understood. What we need to grasp is that the calls for unity which the apostle made, while certainly addressed to specific historic local churches, were also intended for a far wider hearing. The unity the Lord requires is a unity that reaches far beyond the walls of the church local.
It is this aspect of truth, so commonly abused, neglected, ignored, or denied, that we want to examine here.
The epistles, and hence their exhortations to unity, were not always addressed to individual local congregations. When Peter wrote, "be ye all of one mind" (I Pet. 3:8), it was not to one local church in one town but to all the scattered saints of Asia Minor, an area covering many thousands of square miles (I Pet. 1:1). When Paul wrote "be of one mind," it was to "the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia" (II Cor. 13:11; 1:1), Achaia being a province of Greece covering the whole of the southern half of the country. One other church which most certainly would have been included in this salutation, as well as that at Corinth, was the one at Cenchrea (Rom. 16:1). The churches in that part of the world were not just to be united internally but also with each other.
Similarly the Galatian letter had a regional application. Galatia covered a large central area of what is now Turkey and was blessed with a number of local churches. This explains why Paul addressed his letter to "the churches of Galatia" (Gal. 1:1; note the plural). Again, when he writes to the Corinthian believers about collecting alms he says, "as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye" (I Cor 16:1).
The Colossian letter too was written for more than one congregation. We know that in the neighbourhood of Colossae both Philemon and Nymphas had churches meeting in their homes (cf. Phile. 2 and Col. 4:9; 4:15). This letter was to be taken to the nearby city of Laodicea and there "read also in the church of the Laodiceans." In return, the Colossians were to "likewise read the epistle from Laodicea" (Col. 5:16).
We may broaden the scope still further because, in writing his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul was addressing "all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord" (1:2). His Ephesian letter too is addressed generally to "the faithful in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 1:1).
We can draw from these Scriptures the conclusion that unity was to be present not only within the churches of the New Testament, but also amongst them. All that everywhere called upon the name of Jesus Christ at that time were to speak the same thing and be of one mind, without strife or division. It was a responsibility placed upon the people of God generally, wherever they were to be found.
But there is a still broader application. Those exhortations to unity were not given to churches of just one age and generation but to the entire body of Christ of all time. They are for every generation. The letters of Paul and the other apostles have been bound together by the Holy Spirit into one inspired sacred volume. Together with the writings of the prophets (cf. Eph. 2:20), they have been sent to all the churches of every succeeding generation, to the four corners of the earth. They are not bound by time or space. The appeals for unity, therefore, are directed at us too!
Yes, we in our day have a responsibility to the Head of the church to ensure that there are no divisions and schisms within His body but that all are of the same mind, united with a unity that extends beyond the walls of our own local church to embrace all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. That is a heavy responsibility, but to ignore it is most certainly to live in disobedience to our common Lord.
Perhaps at this point someone raises the objection that it is not being realistic to expect all believers to dwell together in unity. It is impossible to fulfill. It is difficult enough to achieve unity in one local church, and a small one at that, let alone among a number of churches. And as for all churches being united together, that is pure fantasy.
To a certain extent, that is quite true. We all see things differently. We are brought up in different family traditions. We come from varying cultural backgrounds, and we all differ as individuals. These things are bound to be reflected in the churches. But the apostles' exhortations are not meant to be realistic: they are idealistic. They establish a principle. They are what God says and are made from His perspective. They do not make allowances for the fact that churches are made up of people who are still sinners and still prone to pride, disputing, strife, jealousy, and so on. They set out the ultimate standard, even though it can never be met on earth. They show us the perfect way in which we should strive to walk. They show us the goal which we are to desire with all our heart and work for with all our strength.
That is how it is with all of God's commands. They present us with our moral obligations. The fact that we are not able to live out a principle does not invalidate that principle or release us from its obligation. We cannot live a single hour without sinning, but still God says, "Be ye holy, for I am holy." Likewise He still says, "Be ye all of one mind." It is a command based upon the incontrovertible principle that the church of Jesus Christ is one. The only reason that it is not one and cannot be one in this world is the sinful, proud independence of us, her members.
Only in the sinless perfection of heaven will our desires be fulfilled and the ideal become glorious reality. Only when we are free from sin shall we be perfectly united and love one another as we should. Only then will the body of Christ know perfect unity within herself and with her Head, and what is true now in principle will be true also in experience.
But even so, we may, we should, experience something of that heavenly unity here upon earth. We have been born again. God has not only given us His commands but He has also given us His Spirit. This means that, despite our fallen nature, with the command comes also the ability to obey. By the Spirit of God we are able to know in some small measure, as a foretaste of heaven, the unity of His church. Hence it is called "the unity of the Spirit" (Eph. 4:3). It is a unity that is produced and imparted by the Holy Spirit of Christ. He brings forth from our hearts and lives the fruits of love, joy, peace, etc., so that even Jews and Gentiles are brought together in the bond of peace. It is for this unity that we are to strive.
The unity of the Spirit is not merely an abstract idea that cannot be experienced. It is a principle that manifests itself in practical, tangible ways. The reader of the book of Acts and the letters of the apostles ought not fail to notice this. The very fact that the epistles were not always addressed to individual congregations but in some cases to regional groups of churches is itself evidence of unity at work.
When the inevitable divisions arose amongst churches, such as those in Achaia, they were dealt with promptly. Churches were separated geographically by many miles of land and sea, but they did not sit in splendid isolation. Even though they had their own cultural distinctives, and certainly their distinctive problems, they were together. Spiritually they were one.
The New Testament provides us with three compelling examples
of this unity at work.
1. Relief of the poor
An unmistakable feature of early church life was a commendable liberality in distributing material help to the poor. This was a duty enjoined on them, and on us, by the apostles. Paul drew on the words of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself to enforce the point: "I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35; see also I Cor. 16:1-4).
The early church took up their responsibility with spontaneous enthusiasm and sacrifice. The needy believers in Jerusalem and the pilgrims who had journeyed from afar at Pentecost found that their every need was met. "All that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need" (Acts 2:44, 45).
This passage is often misrepresented as teaching that the believers sold and pooled all their possessions in order to live in some kind of commune arrangement, but there is nothing to indicate that that was the case. The selling and sharing was a continual activity. At no time did the believers reach the point at which they had sold everything they owned. Acts 2 simply tells us that they were selling their possessions and sharing the proceeds with those whom they knew to be in need, as those needs arose. They most certainly kept their houses, because we read that they were "breaking bread from house to house" (v. 46).
This generosity of spirit was not confined to immediate neighborhoods. Almsgiving extended to meeting the needs of those at a distance. In Acts 11 we find the disciples at Antioch sending relief, every man according to his ability, "unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea" (vv. 29, 30).
Paul encouraged the believers in Corinth, and by implication throughout Achaia, to give generously in supplying the needs of the saints in Macedonia so that "your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality" (II Cor. 8:14).
The Macedonian believers themselves were noted for their own liberality, despite afflictions and "deep poverty" (II Cor. 8:2,4). Macedonia covered an area roughly equivalent to the northern half of modern Greece, and we know of at least three churches within its borders: at Thessalonica, Philippi, and Berea. The Thessalonian church is especially commended by Paul for their love of the brethren "in all Macedonia." He urges them, "but we beseech you, brethren, that ye increase more and more" (I Thess. 4:9-10).
The churches of Macedonia apparently collected their alms, pooled them, and entrusted them to the apostle Paul, asking him to distribute them on his travels. Paul described this happy task as taking upon himself "the fellowship of the ministering of the saints" (II Cor. 8:4).
On another occasion Paul went to Jerusalem solely with that intention: "But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints. For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem" (Rom. 15:25,26). All the Greek churches were involved together in helping the saints at Jerusalem.
In order that he remain above reproach, Paul entrusted the gifts collected in Macedonia to three men, and it is instructive to note, in no fewer than three verses, how these men are described: "And we have sent with [Titus] the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches; And not that only, but who was chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace" (II Cor.8:18-19). These men were "the messengers of the churches, and the glory of Christ" (v. 23). The Corinthians were to receive them with affection, proving to them "and before the churches," i.e., those churches who had sent them, that the apostle's testimony concerning their love had been true (v. 24).
The point is that these three men were not sent by just one independent church, nor yet by three churches acting independently of each other, but by "the churches" working together. There was evidently a procedure in place whereby the churches could cooperate in choosing and commissioning the right men. It has to be said that in these days of fierce independency such an operation could never be undertaken.
Clearly the early church took "the daily ministration" (Acts 6:1) very seriously. It involved much time and labor, so much so that the apostles found it was distracting them from their primary task of prayer and the ministry of the Word (Acts 6:2, 4). For this reason they commanded the church to choose seven men "of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business" of caring for the widows (Acts 6:3). Seven such men were duly chosen and appointed to the work, and therein we have the origin of the office of deacon in the churches of Christ.
The office of deacon, like the office of elder, is a continuing office. His work is a continuing work. The poor are always with us, and their needs today are to be met by the dispensing of alms just as they were in the churches' earliest times. That is the deacons' work, together with the visitation of the sick and widows, bringing relief in the form of material help and words of consolation and cheer from the Scriptures. Today the office of deacon has degenerated into little more than that of a caretaker who maintains the material fabric of church buildings. Does it ever occur to the modern deacon that his earliest counterparts did not have any church buildings to maintain? What did they do? They cared for the material needs of the church. That is a crucial distinction but one that is lost today.
The current neglect of the deacons' true work is a serious matter, and that for three reasons. In the first place, the ingathering and distribution of alms is the very purpose for which the office of deacon was created. It is the deacons' raison d'etre. Not to carry it out is to disobey the church's Head. In the second place, the consequences for both the material and spiritual well-being of the poor in our churches are dire. The priestly mercies of Christ are being denied them. In the third place, and this is the salient point, the churches are deprived of one of the most important and certainly the most expressive and tangible signs of their unity. Within the body of Christ there are materially prosperous churches and there are materially deprived churches. When we have the example of the early churches to follow and the means, in the office of deacon, to fulfill it, what grounds do we have to neglect the poor just because they are not in our own local church? It is the calling of prosperous churches to collect alms and, through the deacons, to dispense them to those in need wherever that need may arise.
But there are further examples in the New Testament of unity
at work.
2. Labouring together in the gospel
Our second example can be found sprinkled liberally throughout the epistles. They are the expressions of endearment used by the writers towards their fellow believers. There was a deep bond of love and affection between them, no matter how far apart they happened to be geographically. Paul begins his letter to Philemon in this way, writing from Rome to Colossae: "Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother, unto Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer, And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier". The same short letter ends: "There salute thee Epaphras, my fellowprisoner in Christ Jesus; Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellowlabourers" ( Phile. 1, 2, 23, 24).
The salutations with which Paul closes his Roman, Colossian, and first Corinthian letters give the same clear demonstration of the spiritual unity which bound the saints and churches together. It was a unity which expressed itself in love and mutual support among fellow laborers in the work of the gospel. They were all in it together.
Paul often used the term "fellow" to describe his partners in the gospel. Titus was his "fellowhelper" (II Cor. 8:23); Timothy, as well as those others quoted above from Philemon's letter, was Paul's "fellowlabourer" (I Thess. 3:2); Epaphroditus and Archippus were his "fellowsoldiers" (Phil. 2:25; Phile.2); Epaphras and Tychicus were "fellowservants" (Col. 1:7; 4:7) and in Colossians 4 Paul lists several "fellowworkers unto the kingdom of God." The work of the gospel was one work, and they were all fellows together in that work. They were not working independently of each other.
This is wholly appropriate for an organism. Churches and their members are to live, think, and work together as one, one body, the body of Christ, with one heart and one soul. They are to encourage one another, love one another, care for one another, and strive together in the work of the gospel as fellow laborers.
The reality and intensity of unity amongst the New Testament churches is clearly evident as through Paul's letters they sent their united salutations around the world. Hence we read in the letter to Corinth, "The churches of Asia salute you" (I Cor. 16:19), and in Paul's letter to Rome a general greeting from all the churches together: "The churches of Christ salute you" (Rom. 16:16). Can one seriously imagine such greetings being sent today even from the churches of one English county to those of another? In independency the lines of such communications are broken.
Sometimes, however, questions arose in the churches. Invariably
these questions concerned not just one church, nor even a number
of churches, but all of them. Our third example of unity in operation
is concerned with how the churches dealt with that kind of problem.
3. The Jerusalem council
When difficulties arose at Antioch over the place of circumcision in the new dispensation, it was clear that the issue at stake was not just a local one. It affected all the churches and therefore needed to be dealt with at a broader level than the local congregation. Thus we read in Acts 15 that the Antioch brethren "determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about the question" (see Acts 15:1ff.). True, these were apostolic days and therefore very different from our own, but the point is that in seeking apostolic authority the church at Antioch did not act alone. The brethren met with the elders at Jerusalem, and a church council was convened. They "assembled with one accord" and all the problems were openly discussed.
At the close of their deliberations emissaries and letters were sent to Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia to convey to the churches in those places the authoritative conclusion of the council. As Paul and Silas traveled "they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4).
We will return to these events later, but suffice to say now that here was established a pattern for the churches to continue throughout the post-apostolic era. There would be no apostles then because the canon of Scripture would be complete. When matters of common concern arose, the elders of the churches were to meet together before the Word of God, which would be their sole authority in all matters of faith and practice. Led by the Spirit of God into the truth, the churches would then continue in one mind, speaking with one voice.
What was it, then, that held those early churches together? What was the basis of their unity? What was the glue? Well, of course, it almost goes without saying that theirs was not the artificial unity of our modern-day ecumenists who are held together by compromise. Neither was it that perfect unity for which the Lord prayed in John 17, "that they may be one as we are one." For that we must wait until we reach glory. No, what united the churches of those days was the truth: "Therefore love the truth and peace" says the Scripture (Zech. 8:19), and therein lies the heart of the matter.
It is not a case of either/or but both/and-truth and peace. True peace and biblical unity cannot be bought at the expense of truth.
We have already established that the unity of the church is no less than the unity of Christ, in whom there is no division. What the ecumenists forget, though, is that Christ also declared Himself to be "the truth" (John. 14:6). In Him there is no falsehood or deviation, for He is the pure and absolute Truth. Therefore, just as the church is in Christ united, so she is also in Christ pure and undefiled. This means in practice that as the church militant, the church in the world, seeks to express the unity of the body, she can do so only by keeping herself in the truth.
The teaching which the Lord Jesus Christ imparted to His disciples throughout His ministry was truth in all its pristine glory, untainted by even the suspicion of error. His words to Pilate are the Scriptures' own confirmation of that, "To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth" (John. 18:37).
That truth Christ had received from His Father in heaven: "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me," He says (John 7:16). "I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things" (see John 8:28-32; 12:49, 50; 14:10, 24; 15:15).
This divine truth, this pure doctrine from heaven, the disciples learned at the feet of their Master. He imparted it to them as only He could, without error, and in it they were all united. On the day of Pentecost they were "together," they were "with one accord" (Acts 1:14; 2:1, 44, 46). Such was the visible unity of the Lord's disciples.
This same truth the apostles then took with them and preached wherever the Spirit of God sent them. Paul, the apostle born out of due time, assured the Corinthian believers that what he had preached to them he had been taught by no less a teacher than the Lord Himself: "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you" (I Cor. 11:23).
Similarly, to the Galatians he wrote, "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1:11, 12).
Each apostle received from the Lord the same body of doctrine and preached the same gospel wherever he was sent. Whether in Athens, Rome, or Jerusalem the same Christ was presented, the same message of salvation declared, and the same doctrines expounded, without contradiction, just as the apostles themselves had been taught by the Savior.
What did Timothy hear from the lips of Paul? He heard "the form of sound words," to which he was to hold fast (II Tim. 1:13) and in turn preach to others. He too preached exactly the same message. Paul sent Timothy to Corinth so that his "son in the faith" could remind the believers there "of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church" (I Cor. 4:17).
Notice what Paul says: "as I teach everywhere in every church." He did not attempt to adapt the content of his message to his various hearers: "And so ordain I in all churches" (I Cor. 7:17). "As I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye" (I Cor. 16:1). "God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints" (I Cor. 14:33; see also I Thess. 2:14).
From all of this it follows that the entire early church, that first generation of new dispensation believers, was grounded in the truth, even as though they had heard it from the lips of the incarnate Truth Himself. In fact Paul explicitly tells the Ephesians that they had heard Christ. Of course, they had not seen Him in the flesh nor heard Him speak; but, nevertheless, through the voice of the apostle they had heard Him. They had been taught by Him "as the truth is in Jesus" (Eph. 4:20-21). This was because Paul had preached to them the word of truth (Eph. 2:13), which is the word of Christ (Col. 3:16).
The apostles were able to do this because in the coming of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost came He who would "bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" (John 14:26). Even though the Lord was no longer with them in body, His Spirit was present, guiding them into all truth: "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me" (John 16:13, 14).
Here then is the bond, the glue, that held those early believers together. They were united in the same system of truth, the faith once delivered unto them by the Lord's apostles, that apostles' doctrine in which they were steadfastly to continue (Acts 2:42; Jude 3). That was the bond. The basis of their unity was truth. It is the truth, both then and now, which binds the Lord's people together such that they are all of one mind. That is the essence of biblical church unity: it is to share a common belief in the eternal, unchangeable truth.
What we must realize is that that same body of truth which united the churches of Galatia and Achaia with those of Jerusalem and Ephesus, every succeeding generation of the Lord's people have had in their possession. It was not unique to the days of the apostles. They were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it down for us, so that we have it now in our own hands without alteration, no more and no less. Therefore the unity which they experienced in their day is no less accessible to us.
The church today has no excuse for disunity merely because she has come such a long way in time from the golden age of the apostles. We have the same faith, the same apostles' doctrine, the same word of truth as the early church possessed. This is the true apostolic succession-not a succession of office or authority but a succession of doctrine, of truth down the ages. Never has the church been without it: "I have given them thy word," said Christ, "thy word is truth" (John 17:14, 17).
The church in our day has received the truth as a glorious heritage. From generation to generation that heritage, like the athlete's baton, has been handed down until we are entrusted with it for safe keeping in these closing years of the twentieth century.
The consequence of this succession is that we enjoy a blessed organic unity with the saints of former days. It must be said that this is not sufficiently appreciated by us, if at all. If we are united with the saints of past generations in a common belief in the truth, being guided by the same Spirit of truth, that is a great blessing, and we can live, or should live, in the consciousness of it. We should live in conscious fellowship with the church of the past. No individual believer, no local church or denomination of churches can sit in historical isolation, any
more than it can in geographical isolation, because all are members together of the same body.
Maybe one of the reasons why this consciousness has been lost is the church's ignorance of her history, but I believe there is another even more important reason. We live today in an age of unashamed individualism. The 'rights' and desires of the individual are considered paramount. He is independent. He is responsible only to and for himself. He sets his own goals and ethical standards in isolation from all that has gone before, and even to the disregard of others around him. He goes his own way and seeks his own ends for his own personal fulfillment.
Independence is the spirit of the age. Wives seek independence from their husbands. Husbands want independence from their wives. Parents want to be independent from their interfering children, and when the children grow up they want to be independent from their aged, burdensome parents. The results of this in society are clear to see as abortion, child abuse, neglect of the elderly, and other social evils abound.
Needless to say, such individualism has no place in the church of Jesus Christ. Each member of the body, each living stone in the building occupies a position in relation to all the others irrespective of time and place. We hold the truth in relation both to those who have gone before and to those who will come after us.
This is a principle brought out clearly in Paul's letters to Timothy. Paul writes that he had received the gospel, the "glorious gospel" he calls it, as a sacred trust (I Tim. 1:11). It was committed to him for safe keeping. He in turn passed it on to Timothy with the command that he was to hold on to it: "hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us" (II Tim. 1:13, 14).
Likewise Timothy was to pass on the baton of truth to the generation after him: "And the thing that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men." And what were those faithful men to do in their turn but "to teach others also" (II Tim. 2:2).
In a similar vein, Paul writes to the brethren at Thessalonica, this time using the term "tradition" to emphasize the continuity of truth: "stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle" (II Thess. 2:15).
That which our fathers have taught us we in turn are to pass on to our children, for they are the church of their generation. We have a responsibility to them, "shewing to the generation to come the praises of the LORD, and his strength, and his wonderful works that he hath done…. That the generation to come might know them, even the children which should be born; who should arise and declare them to their children: that they might set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments" (Ps. 78:4-7). In this way each child of God, from Adam to the last elect soul, is related to and united with every other.
We are to "hold the traditions." We are to hold fast to the apostles' doctrine which has been passed down to us, the Word of God, for that is the bond which unites us, just as it united the churches of two thousand years ago. It unites the churches both among themselves and with the church of past and future generations.
There is a continuity of doctrine, originating in heaven, woven into the very fabric of church history as an unbroken thread. Ever present, it unites the whole church until the gathering of the elect is complete, for the Son of God, from the beginning to the end of the world, gathers, defends, and preserves to Himself a church agreeing in true faith.
The objection is often made, however, that rather than uniting, truth divides, doctrine divides. There is certainly a sense in which that is true. Truth does divide-it divides from the lie. The churches of the New Testament were not only to unite in the truth but also to shun those who were in error: "mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them" (Rom. 16:17). He who preaches "another gospel," "let him be accursed" (see Gal. 1:6-9).
To the Thessalonians Paul issues a strong and what may appear to us a most unloving command, "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which ye received of us" (II Thess. 3:6). This is what marks out true unity from the false unity of the ecumenical movement. When the truth is rejected, the lie must be withstood and shunned.
The cause of disunity is always error, never truth. In Philippians 3:2 Paul writes, "beware of the concision." He is warning the church of certain Judaizers, "evil workers" he calls them, who were insisting that the rite of circumcision should still be performed, even on Christian converts. They were putting value on the outward rite, while denying the inner reality of heart circumcision (see Rom. 2:28,29). By a clever play on words the Holy Spirit underlines the very point we are making here. By their erroneous insistence on the cutting of the flesh (circumcision), they were guilty of the mutilation (concision) of the body of Christ. They were making a cut in the church, causing a tear and division, rending the church apart (cf. Rom. 16:17,18).
The approach of the liberal and the ecumenist is to say that the church is in search of the truth and that different parts of the body find it in different expressions. They then go on to argue that each such 'expression of truth' is equally legitimate and therefore must be respected by all. That road leads only to the blind alley of relativism, where there is no truth and no error, where everyone has the right to believe what he wants to believe.
No, the church is not in search of the truth, she has the truth. She is the custodian of the truth. She has the Word of God and she has the Spirit of truth as her Interpreter.
The church has indeed come a long way in time from the age of the apostles. Two thousand years is plenty of time to account for the multitude of heresies, lies, and half-truths which plague the churches today. A tendency to depart from the truth was evident very early in church history, so much so that it surprised even the apostle Paul (see Gal. 1:6). It was present even within the apostolic band (see Gal. 2:11), and subsequent history is littered with departures from the faith, prompting what is the only biblical response from those who remain faithful: separation for the re-forming of the church anew. "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord" (II Cor. 6:17). That is the biblical pattern, of which the sixteenth century Reformation is such a shining example.
Yes, truth divides from those who oppose it, but it unites in a most beautiful way, crossing geographical and historical barriers, all who love it and who walk in its ways. In the church of Jesus Christ no one holds the truth in isolation.
To summarize thus far, we have sought to establish that the basis for church unity is belief in the truth. We have noticed that this was the bond holding together the churches of the New Testament. They were united in a common belief in the truth of God as it had been delivered to them by the apostles.
We have noticed also that the truth is no less than Christ Himself, for He said, "I am … the truth" (John 14:6). To believe in the truth is no less than to believe in Christ. That is faith. We can say, therefore, that the bond uniting believers and churches is "the faith." "There is one body,… one faith" (Eph. 4:4-6). Objectively, "the faith" is that body of truth contained in the Scriptures, it is that "faith which was once delivered unto the saints" ( Jude 3); subjectively it is that which unites us to Christ. Understood in both senses, faith is God's precious gift to us by His grace. We believe "according to the working of his mighty power" (Eph. 1:19; see also Col. 1:29 and Eph. 2:8-9).
The question we consider now is how this gift of God expresses itself. Does faith stay silent? Does faith not speak? Scripture provides us with the emphatic answer that, yes, faith does speak. It must and it will speak.
Faith cannot remain silent: "I believed, therefore have I spoken" confessed the psalmist (Ps. 116:10). Faith has a voice which even all the enmity and persecutions of the world cannot put to silence: "We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak" (II Cor. 4:13).
It is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks (Matt. 12:34). The mouth provides the evidence by which we know the spiritual state of the heart, whether it is good or corrupt. If a man has evil treasure in his heart he will bring forth evil things from his mouth, but "a good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things" (Matt. 12:35).
Where there is faith, a heart indwelt by the Spirit of truth, there will be a mouth speaking wisdom, making known the faithfulness of God to all generations (Ps. 49:3; 89:1). Where the Lord God is sanctified in the heart there will be a tongue ever ready to give an answer to every man that asks a reason of the hope that is in him (I Pet. 3:15).
This speech of faith Scripture calls the confession of faith. The believer confesses his faith before men. That truth which we believe we also confess. The Bible constantly maintains a vital link between the heart and the mouth, between faith and the confession of faith. It goes even so far as to identify that confession with salvation itself, for where there is confession of Christ, there must of necessity be faith in the heart. The two cannot be divorced: "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Rom. 10:9-10).
It is possible to distinguish three levels at which this confession of faith is made.
1. First of all, as should be clear from the Scriptures we have already referred to, confession is made at a personal level. We all as individual believers confess our faith before men. We testify of the truth that is in us, of that which we believe.
Scripture has given us the confession of Peter, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16); of Martha, "Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world" (John 11:27); and of the Ethiopian eunuch, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (Acts 8:37).
But confession does not end there. It is not confined to the individual. Even Peter's confession can be understood as being the united confession of the disciples, Peter so often acting as their spokesman.
This brings us to the second level at which confession is made: the local church.
2. A gathered company of the Lord's people, being of one mind, confess together "we believe." It was Paul's prayer for the church at Rome that they might "with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 15:6). In this manner each church becomes a light set upon a hill, a beacon shining out into this dark, sin-benighted world. With every member speaking the same thing, she is like a trumpet giving out a sure and certain sound, telling forth the truth of her God.
Now there are some Christians for whom the whole idea of a church creed or confession of faith is anathema. "No creed but Christ" is their catchy motto. Since this attitude stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and character of a creed, we will digress slightly to explain this in greater detail.
For a biblical description of a creed we need look no further than to Luke 1:1. A creed is "a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us." It is important that we recognize a creed as having two aspects, both of which can be identified in this text.
Firstly, it is a declaration. That is clearly understood. A creed is an objective statement declaring what a church believes to be true concerning God. It forms an answer to the question "What is truth?" It is easy for us to say that we believe the truth, but it is also very glib. It does not say anything. There is not a church on the face of the earth, however apostate it has become, which will not say it believes the truth. The important thing is to state what we understand the truth to be, what we understand the Bible to say. That is what a creed or confession of faith does. It thereby serves as a standard by which a local church is identified and around which its members unite in opposition to error and the world.
But if we leave our definition of creed there, I believe we will have missed the most important aspect, indeed the whole point of what is meant by "confession of faith." A creed is something far more than just an objective standard. There is a prominent subjective element. This is evident from the expression "most surely believed," as found in Luke 1:1. A creed ought not to be considered merely as a collection of doctrinal statements to which believers give their mental assent. That may well satisfy an enquirer as to a church's orthodoxy, but in itself it is not enough. Ephesus was strictly orthodox, yet there was something of the utmost importance that was lacking: her first love (see Rev. 2:1-7). She had lost her zeal for the Lord and His truth.
Confession of faith is not a cold, clinical assent to a set of doctrines. There is something far deeper and more spiritual involved. Real confession arises from the heart. It is living and vibrant. It is not just an intellectual activity but is a matter of the heart and of the soul. It carries conviction and warmth as the living testimony of the church. In her corporate confession of faith a church is affirming with all her heart, mind and soul, "WE BELIEVE…."
A creed is not like a political manifesto which someone draws up and calls on others to endorse. A creed is the voice of a church's united faith. It is not something brought in from outside, but it originates in the hearts of the members themselves-hearts indwelt by the Holy Spirit of truth. It has been well said that "the true use of a creed is not to set forth what men must believe, but to record what men do believe" (W.H.P. Faunce).
Confession is the work of the Spirit. That document of objective doctrinal statements which many so decry is a fruit of the Holy Spirit, a work of faith, a spontaneous outpouring from the heart. It is the common confession of a company of the Lord's people gathered together by Christ into a local church. It is therefore to be maintained, outworked, and cherished by that church as a most precious gift from her heavenly Father. When a church is thus united in the faith, giving expression to her unity by common confession, that is truly wonderful and cause for thanksgiving to God.
But we must go further because, wonderful though that may be, it still does not give full expression to the unity of Christ's body. There is a broader unity, as we have seen, and that too is to be outworked in the life of the churches.
3. When a number of churches, perhaps scattered over large distances as were those of the apostolic age, confess together the same confession, speak the same thing, being united together in the truth also with the church of past generations, that is more wonderful still. That is a more complete reflection of the unity of the body of Christ on earth. That is the unity of the Spirit. In other words, it is biblical church unity.
Paul besought the church at Corinth, together with "all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord" to "all speak the same thing" (I Cor. 1:2,10). The idea of confession therefore extends beyond the local situation. Churches and saints covering large geographical areas who are united in the truth are required to make common confession of that truth. It is their calling to speak the same thing and not to contradict one another, causing confusion and misunderstanding and thereby bringing dishonor to the name of the Lord.
Clearly enunciating what they believe the truth of the Word of God to be, churches are called to unite in common confession of their faith. They are to identify with that confession, defend it against the attacks and slanders of the world, oppose on its basis all errors and heresies, and give all the glory to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
It is true that occasionally during the twentieth century this responsibility has been recognized to a degree. Some churches have sincerely sought to express a broader unity by the forging of stronger ties between themselves. Invariably, however, these attempts have been on the basis of wholly inadequate "statements of faith." Even a recent attempt to revive Presbyterian church government in England has given the appearance of being little more than an accommodation of independency under a broad "presbyterian" umbrella.
The point of Presbyterian and Reformed church government is not that it can accommodate variety. No, the point and the beauty of Presbyterian and Reformed church government is that it unites churches of a common confession. This means in practice that a believer can travel from one side of the world to another and find a uniformity in church doctrine and practice. Wherever he may be he will find a spiritual home from home. He will find churches of one mind speaking the same things.
It is not without significance that the creedal standards of the continental Reformed churches (the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Canons of Dordrecht) are together called "the three forms of unity."
Again the importance of the historic aspect to all of this needs emphasizing. Since biblical church unity embraces the saints of every generation, we need to express that historic unity by joining in common confession with our fathers.
The creeds and confessions which our fathers have handed down to us are not just interesting historical documents of no practical use or relevance, though that seems to be the prevailing view today. The fact that they are largely forgotten, ignored, or even disparaged in our day says a great deal about the spiritual condition of the churches and their leaders. It is a sign of the times in which we live that men will not endure sound doctrine, and the creeds are full of sound doctrine. On the one hand the ecumenical spirit of compromise has displaced all zeal for dogmatic theology. On the other hand a mystic subjectivism, seen in its most advanced form in the charismatic movement, but present in principle in many more orthodox circles, has undermined the churches' hold on the Scriptures as the truth, the final and complete revelation of God to His people. These twin scourges leave no place for the creeds.
But even among those who acknowledge the historic creeds and confessions as being of some value, it must be said that they are given only lip-service. By ministers they are considered as little more than useful doctrinal handbooks and reference tools to help in sermon preparation. Perhaps on the occasion of an anniversary they are taken off the shelf and dusted, so to speak, but to the congregation they mean little and remain unread.
No one would deny that the confessions are useful aids to Bible study, but to say that this is their only rule today is to miss their real significance. They have long ceased to be what they should be: a living confession rising from the hearts of the Lord's people united down through history such that they affirm with one voice, "we most surely believe."
It has to be said that, in their understanding of the meaning and significance of the creeds, the vast majority of churches today, and we are talking now about conservative evangelical churches, have missed the point by a mile. They have failed to see them for what they really are. The creeds are not textbooks. They are living confessions of living faith. Combine this failure with an ignorance of and indifference to the church's historic unity, and the loss of visible unity becomes inevitable, since it is through the creeds that it is expressed.
Many if not all of the creeds and confessions were formulated in the heat of intense theological controversy. They were the church's response to heresy, born out of a love and concern for the truth and a need to define and defend it. The saints raised up their creeds as mighty bulwarks against the enemies of truth. It was the heresy of Arianism that gave rise to the Nicene Creed in AD 325. The other trinitarian creeds, the Athanasian and the Chalcedonian, again were written in response to errors concerning the person of our Lord Jesus Christ. But it was the Reformation that produced the fullest expressions of revealed theology. From that work of God, by which He delivered His church from the evil darkness of medieval popery, came such clear and systematic declarations of Christian doctrine as remain unsurpassed to this day among uninspired writings.
This progress of history represents giant steps forward in the church's understanding of the truth. But we must ask, how did the church arrive at such clearer understanding of truth? Was it not by the Holy Spirit Himself: "when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13)? The creeds are the product of the Holy Spirit living and working in the hearts and minds of God's people, causing them, often under severe physical hardship, to see the truth with a clarity and declare it with a sharpness hitherto not known or heard. The calling of the church today is to take hold of that truth into which her fathers were guided and confess it with them.
Does the faith of the children differ from the faith of their fathers? God forbid if that should be so! Has truth changed? It is not for each generation to discover the truth for itself, as the liberal and the modernist would have us to believe, but to receive it with thanksgiving from the hands of those who have gone before, and confess it before men.
This does not rule out the development of truth and continuing reformation down the ages. As the Spirit builds on what has gone before, the church grows in her knowledge and understanding of the truth, but the truth itself does not change, even as Christ does not change. He is "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever" (Heb. 13:8).
By subscribing to the great definitions of truth from former days the church maintains the vital link with the church of her fathers. She stands with them and expresses her organic unity with them, and thereby the church of the present experiences conscious fellowship with the church of the past.
Doctrinal independence from the church of the past is the hallmark of sectarianism. Sects, by their very nature, reject and despise the creeds and confessions. They thrive in a climate of theological individualism. They epitomize the idea of all men believing that which is right in their own eyes and then drawing other men after them. In contrast, churches that "hold the traditions" will with gladness in their hearts join their fathers in common confession of the truth which they all as one believe.
If church unity is to be biblical, therefore, the churches must be confessional churches.
Finally, before we move on, there is a further objection to the confessions which we must consider briefly. Against those churches who take their confessional standards seriously the charge is sometimes made that they give them an authority equal to that of Holy Scripture. There are two comments to be made in reply. In the first place, it is doubtful whether the charge is ever actually true, but, in the second place, even if it were a valid charge, the objection is misdirected, since the fault lies not with the confession, but with the individual, church, or denomination giving it the undue authority.
The authority of a creed is a derived authority and is therefore always subordinate to that of Scripture.
The danger today, in these times of doctrinal laxity, lies not so much in giving the confessions too much authority as not enough. Once a church or denomination becomes embarrassed by its stated confession and quietly leaves it to gather dust on the shelf, or allows diversity of opinion on matters which are judged to be unconcerned with the substance of the faith, then the enemy is at the door, if not already rampaging through the house. The churches no longer speak with one voice, and divisions, with all the disruption and pain they incur, inevitably follow.
When the Bible speaks of our calling with regard to church unity, it never speaks of creating unity or of becoming united. This is because unity already exists as a principle intrinsic to the body of Christ. The idea of Christ's church being divided and having to "come together" is quite foreign to Scripture. Our calling is rather to "walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called … endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one
baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Eph. 1:1; 4:1-6).
The calling of churches is not to manufacture the unity of the Spirit but to keep it, to maintain it.
But that does not mean being passive. Keeping the unity of the Spirit involves effort. The natural inclination of our hearts is toward error, self-seeking, and pride. It is so easy to let the truth slip, to wander from the central path and thus break the bond of unity. For this reason unity has to be worked at. The Philippians were to "stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel" (Phil. 1:27). So must we in our day strive together with one mind, earnestly contending for the faith once delivered ( Jude 3). There is work involved. There are battles to be fought: battles against the flesh, the devil, and the encroachment of worldly thought into the church.
Notice the verbs Paul uses: "endeavour" (Eph. 4:1), "strive" (Phil. 1:27), and "earnestly contend" ( Jude 3). These expressions indicate activity and convey to us the difficulty of the task, the toil, the sweat and tears, the spiritual graft entailed. It is not something that comes naturally to us or without effort. It calls for labor and it calls for grace and humility. We can be so independent by nature, deceiving ourselves that we can go it alone; but there is no place for independence in the body of Christ. We are all related one to another as members of the same body and called to strive together for the cause of the unity of that body.
What, then, is the nature of the work we are called to do? What
is involved? In other words, how is the church to keep the unity
of the Spirit? The apostle Paul explains in this way:
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love (Eph. 4:11-16).
This passage explains to us the principal means by which the church maintains the unity of the body: it is by the preaching of the Word, the work of the ministry.
Earlier we traced an unbroken line of truth from heaven, through the apostles, to the Word of God in our own hands. The Scripture is the truth. The Word of God is our standard and our sole authority in all matters of faith and life. It is therefore, first of all, the responsibility of every child of God to know where that line of truth lies. Then he is to "keep in line." He does this of course by reading and studying the Scriptures for himself.
That is important, but in itself it is not enough. Our subject is the unity of the church, the unity of a body, that living organic entity which is the body of Christ. The manifestation of that body in the world is to be found in local churches. This means that the child of God has a solemn responsibility to seek out a local church and to join himself to it.
The importance of church membership cannot be overstated. Christ gathers His people into local, organized, instituted congregations in the midst of whom He dwells. Private worship in the secret place, family worship, and listening to tape-recorded sermons all have their appropriate place in the believer's life. They are all, to varying degrees, beneficial to his spiritual well-being, but none of them may be considered a substitute for church membership and attendance at the means of grace, chief of which is the preaching of the Word. None of them may be considered a substitute for the corporate worship of God and the experience of the communion of saints, confessing together the one faith. This is because in church membership a principle is at work.
The world has a saying that "no man is an island." This idea surely finds its highest expression in the church of Jesus Christ. Christians are not independent: they are inter-related and inter-dependent as members together of the one body of Christ. When a believer joins a local church he is giving expression to his membership of that body, i.e., that he is a Christian. A believer who remains outside of the local church is a paradox. He is saying, in effect, "I am a member of the body of Christ but not a member." Such a one will find no support for his position in Scripture.
The seriousness of this case becomes clear when we consider the position of someone who leaves the local church. In withdrawing from the local manifestation of Christ's body he is sending a signal to all around him that he is not a member of the body, i.e., not a believer. Indeed, that is the principle underlying the final step in church discipline, excommunication. A member who refuses to repent shows all the signs that he does not belong to Christ's body, hence he may no longer continue as a member of its local manifestation.
No Christian has the right or authority voluntarily to withdraw and absent himself from the local church and maintain an independent existence. He is duty bound as a member of the body to join himself to the local church. "And let us c