At the conference last week, I had an enjoyable conversation with pastor Jeff Noblit about ecclesiological matters. He ask me to think about what I would consider to be irreducible minimums of the local church. Let me a confession first be saying that I have a hard time doing this because by nature I am not a minimalist but a maximalist. I don’t know if that is a disclaimer, but I thought I would provide eleven essential parts of what I believe makes a healthy, biblical church. Now, whether or not they are “irreducible minimums” I am still thinking through, but I will say that I find them to be essential to a biblical church. Here they are in no particular order:
1. Expository Preaching – topical preaching or story telling are no substitutes; God’s Church and God’s Word cannot be separated
2. Baptism and Lord’s Supper – the two ordinances are simply non-negotiable
3. Regenerate Church Membership– this is kind of redundant because the Church is comprised of regenerate believers, but we live in a day where many are members of churches are at best baptized pagans with moralism as their gospel.
4. Church Discipline – goes with #3 and is necessary for the purity and visibility of the Church
5. Evangelism and Missions – the Great Commission is inherent in the Church’s existence; Christ will build His Church, and He will do it through His people
6. Prayer – God’s people are a praying people, individually and corporately, and anywhere Christ dwells is a house of prayer
7. Fellowship/Service/Discipleship– the Bible’s “one another’s” reflect the interpersonal and intricate relationship believers have with one another
8. Sound Doctrine/Biblical Theology – the Church is the pillar and buttress of truth, and truth must be emphasized to mark false teachers and those who apostasize as well as instruct believers in the faith once for all handed down to the saints
9. Confession of Faith – springs off #8 as a concise statement to promote clarity and unity
10. Unity – Christ prayed for it, Paul pleaded for it, and we must have it
11. Benevolence/Mercy Ministry – pure and undefiled religion, remembering the poor, doing unto the least of these . . . the Church must show the love and compassion of Christ through her deeds and actions as well as her words
I have a second-tier list which I think are very important but not necessarily essential. Any thoughts on these eleven aspects I have laid out?
2&3
Are these two connected? I mean, do you not have to have a reasonable knowledge of who is “regenerate” before the ordinances can be adminitstered? If that is the case, how would you go about regulating the Lord’s Supper? Old question I know and bound to cause a stir. But, the question of “regenerate membership” will also cause the same ripples of disdain, because it seems to be the same question. Should a Church restrict communion, and how?
5,7&8
Does the great commish only concern missions and evangelism, or are they the fruit of 7&8? I ask this because many churches have separated them and the result has been the diminishing of sound doctrine for the sake of evangelism and missions. The harvest is ready and we must gather, however the first works must be done. Laborers must be prepared. I think that is what Jesus was calling his disciples to pray for. Laborers need to be sent, but first they must be taught. So, the great commish’s primary focus is on teaching disciples, the natural effect of which is the gathering of them. It is like training a doctor, the natural outcome is to go and practice medicine. It is only after the required training, though, that they are let to practice.
11 I am curious, WWJD? Did he command that charities for the unregenerate be established? Is what he said about the benefits of the Church not being for those who are not eaters of his flesh and drinkers of his blood, true? I have asked this question of many. It is always an affront. The only thing that I am asking for is an explanation of who should receive of the Lord’s table? The companion question is in relationship to points 7&10. Does your church have a widows role? Does it provide services so that there are no poor among you? Do they all have adequate housing, food, clothing? Are their vehicles in good repair? How about their health care needs?
I am no “social gospel” proponent, quite the contrary. I question though the validity of so called out-reach through charity as if it really fulfills any mandate of Scripture. The Lord’s words were short and straight to the point, that without commitment to the discipline of discipleship, the people were to have no part in him. Same rules as communion, same as membership. James seems to speak of the contradiction of the poor and the rich in congregations. I have yet to see a church that is committed to true internal “fellowship.” The word fellowship comes from a word which communion is derived from and seems to go hand in hand with the Lord’s supper. James it appears would have these blessed in material things doing good to their fellows in communion rather than taking it to the world, i.e. outside the fellowship. This all goes back to 3,4,7&11. How does a church recognize who is worthy to recieve from the Lord’s table? And, should it be breaking bread for the world?
Do you have a widows roll? How about an elders fund? Is your church involved in meeting the material needs of its members? Or do you think it is fit to take a mother’s need and refuse her because it is a gift dedicated to the temple? I am not asking as an indictment. These question go hand in hand with the irreducibility of the responsibility of the Church. And, I ask them with the same gravity as I would about how one goes about determining who is regenerate.
I am beginning to sense that the Church today is confused about her identity and that radical changes are on the horizon. Or perhaps, radical corrections. The things that you have posited are appearing ubiquitously. The question really is, what is the Church? It is only proper that it should be asked with such great diffusion of kind thoughout Christianity. This is undoubtedly driven by the massive availability of information. More people than ever are discovering that the Church has become amorphous, indistinct, so no longer recognizable as anything other than one of many religious organizations. Recently, it was mentioned that the name “evangelical” needs to be dropped because it carries too much baggage. It no longer defines anything. With home churches, the emergent church movement, disassembly of mainline churches, factions and unions of branches that no longer recognize distinctions, redefintions such as you have listed are healthy. I just wonder where it will take us. Obviously, one thing that it will do is to cause sanctimony. And that on both sides. There is a healthy aspect as well. For it will call to attention that we must seek and get right what the Scriputure says to the Churches.
Good list, except for #1. It’s so important to capture the heart of God and deliver the message that he reveals. If God wants us to hit on intercession, preach on that. If he gives us a dream or a vision, preach on that. I think expository teaching is fine, but better suited for a bible study environment as opposed to a preaching and exhorting environment where instructions for that moment in time are being delivered.
John,
I am not sure I understand what you mean by capturing the heart of God and thereby delivering the message he reveals. I believe in the sufficiency of Scripture and as God’s revelation to us. I do not believe he has called us to preach about visions or dreams or any other extra-biblical sources. Rather, we are to preach the whole counsel of God’s Word as the timeless yet timely and relevant for today.
The issue comes down to what is authoritative for your preaching/teaching. I do not consider someone’s extra-biblical, personal account as auhoritative just as I don’t consider any creed or confession authrotative. God’s Word alone (sola scriptura) is the sum and substance of what I believe should be fountational to the Church as she is understood as the pillar and buttress of truth.
Thomas,
As I have read through your lengthy comment a couple of times, I realize that there is no way I can answer all your questions in a comment. The purpose of this post is to share my thoughts on what I consider necessary marks of a “true church.” Now, that is not to say that I am totally, 100% confident in the list I provided as “irreducible minimums,” but I am wrestling through these ecclesiological matters myself.
I will say that the Lord’s Supper is to be offered only to those united with Christ through saving knowledge of Him (via faith and repentance). The Bible gives strict warning about being flippant with the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, and I do not believe that offering communion to unbelievers or anyone who happens to come into a church service is doing the work of a responsible and accountable shepherd of the flock.
Great list. Thanks. It is always good to think through (and read through) such things.