Denomination and Church Expansion

TROWEL & SWORD

Denomination and Church Expansion
Are they in conflict?

Rev. A. Quak
Personal Observations

The church is in its eighth year, having started in a school in a well-developed suburb of Gosford with 12 people. The leadership of the church was, and still are, committed Evangelicals who are strongly Calvinistic—a number of their leaders were trained at Moore College¹. They maintain a genuine commitment to the Scriptures and continue to make sure the Scriptures are central to all they do. They do not use “worship gimmicks” and they take a strong stance against Pentecostalism. They are the Central Coast Evangelical Church who, today, have a combined total of 800 worshipping at one of three services on a Sunday. Four years ago they planted the Lakes Evangelical Church which was a daughter church that started with 50 people. Today the LEC is a church of 270 committed Evangelicals.

Now I know that numbers are not everything, and there are many dangers in evaluating ministry success on the basis of numbers alone. However, for me, there are some issues here which are difficult to ignore.

Why could the CCEC achieve, on average, 80% growth per year while our average denomination growth for the last 8 years has been negative 7%?²
What “ministry ethos” has the CCEC passed onto her daughter church which enabled it to average 50% growth for the last four years?
Why do theologically conservative people visit and stay at these churches, yet these same people are not staying in our churches, even though we are so similar in theological outlook?
Most significantly, why are long-term members of our own denomination also transferring to churches such as these?

These are not easy issues to raise, and coming up with a comprehensive answer is beyond the limits of this article. So I’m going to focus my attention on one angle—that being the subject of structure. A significant difference between CRCA churches and churches of a similar mould to the CCEC is the fact that CRCA churches are denominational while many churches like the CCEC are independent. This difference raises an obvious question. Could it be possible that denominational ties hinder ministry to the point where our denominationalism actually conflicts with church expansion? It might not be a question we are comfortable with but it is a question worth exploring.

Scriptural Observations

As we explore this question our starting point has to be in the Scriptures. As a denominational church we presume that the Scriptures allow churches to function in a denominational fashion. However, on issues like this, we should never presume, instead we should always be sure. When we turn to the Scripture we see that a definition of the nature and structure of the God’s redeemed community revolves around the key Greek word ekklesia³. When we hear this word, we immediately think “church” with our definition of “church” being tied to our experiences and what we are comfortable with. However such a process does not necessarily lead us to a Scriptural definition of ekklesia.

If we want to be more precise we need to translate the word ekklesia with words like “gathering” or “assembly” and then determine the character of that “gathering” or “assembly” from the immediate context. In so doing we remove our preconceived ideas of what church is like and we discover that the character of the New Testament ekklesia is quite varied. Consider the following three examples.

The emerging post-Pentecostal Christian movement in Jerusalem is an ekklesia defined by rapid growth (Acts 2:41, 47; 4:4; 5:14; 6:7), daily fellowship (Acts 2:46), and a deep desire to care for one another (Acts 2:44; 4:32-35). For some time the total community was under the rule of the apostles and elders (Acts 15:2, 6) with James the brother of Jesus being the main leader (Acts 15:14; 21:17). The members of this ekklesia were mostly Jews who were zealous to uphold the Mosaic law—they often gathered at the temple.
When Paul writes to the church in Thessalonica he contrasts the local ekklesia (1 Thess 1:1) with “God’s churches (ekklesia – pl) in Judea” (1 Thess 2:14). In so doing Paul deliberately distinguishes between the Christian assemblies which gather in Thessalonica as opposed to the Christian assemblies which gather in the wider region. In this context an ekklesia is a group of believers in the same city. ⁴
When Paul writes to the Corinthians he identifies them as “the church (ekklesia) of God in Corinth” (1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1). As with the church in Thessalonica, this identification is designed to differentiate all the churches in Corinth from the ekklesia planted in other cities (See 1 Cor 16:1, 19; 2 Cor 8:1; 11:8). Yet Paul takes a step further when he alludes to an occasion in Corinth when ‘the whole church (ekklesia) came together’ (1 Cor 14:23). By implication there must have been other times when the Christians in Corinth came together in smaller groups, with these groups also being described as an ekklesia. So, in the Corinthian epistles, ekklesia can refer to all the believers in the city as well as the individual gatherings which take place across the city.⁵

From this brief study of Scripture we see why it is important not to simply translate ekklesia as “church”—because the word “church” brings with it many preconceived ideas. The church/ekklesia in the New Testament is dynamic in character with a multifaceted ministry and organisation. Each local gathering is not just a small piece of the ekklesia rather, when the people of God gather before the Lord, they are an ekklesia in their own right. Even so small a fellowship as a house church can be called an ekklesia because the church is not merely the sum total of all Christians meeting in all locations.

What does all of this mean for the issue of denominationalism? If we define a denomination as:-

(A) group of churches with similar doctrinal beliefs, who have similar traditions and backgrounds, who share the same goals in ministry, who desire fellowship to encourage one another, and have organically bound themselves together to establish corporately what they feel cannot be wrought separately.⁶

Then we would have to say that the New Testament does not furnish us with the evidence that such bonds existed in the early church. Local gatherings were quite different from other local gatherings. Churches in one city were quite different from churches in other cities—with Corinth being a prime example. The concept of mutual and corporate adherence to a body of doctrine was quite foreign to the New Testament.

However, this does not mean we should abandon a denominational approach. By its very nature the local ekklesia has a natural connection with the wider ekklesia and no Christian gathering should work in isolation from the wider body. Paul affirms this truth in a number of ways:-

i) He encourages mutual cooperation and involvement in a famine relief collection (see Rom 15:25-27; 1 Cor 16:1; 2 Cor 8:1-6).

ii) He implements consistent intra-church practises (1 Cor 4:17; 7:17; 11:16; 14:33).

iii) He promotes a high degree of communication between the local churches (Acts 14:26-27; 15:3-4; Col 4:16).
During his missionary journeys it was never Paul’s intention to plant isolated churches which were totally disconnected from the wider body. The congregations in Asia Minor were clustered in a general region and the church planters returned to visit each of the new fellowships in order to give them encouragement.
When we put all this evidence together we see that the ekklesia could be:-

an independent church among a number of churches in a city,
a single church in one city,
the combined total of a number of churches in one city,
groups of churches in various cities,
and the combined total of all the churches.

There were all sorts of ekklesia structures in the New Testament which were effectively ministering the Gospel. As such we can be confident that Scripture allows churches to function in a denominational fashion and we do not need to see a Scriptural conflict between denominationalism and church expansion. Denominationalism, in and of itself, is not a hindrance to kingdom growth.

Identity Observations

So far we have ruled out the possibility that we are using an unbiblical structure and, as a result, this is the reason why many denominational CRCA churches are experiencing negative, or small, growth. We do not have to be in an independent church in order to be effective for the kingdom. So let’s move forward and explore another aspect of our denominational structure—more specifically the way our structures define our identity.

While it is true that the ekklesia in the New Testament varied significantly in form and structure, it is also true that there was an underlying unity. Scripture makes it clear that the ekklesia is a divinely created body—the ekklesia comes into existence because those who make up the gathering are those who are “in Christ” (see 1 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:22; Eph 3:10-11). Our place in the church is always, and primarily, dependant upon the redeeming work of Jesus and the fact that we are in fellowship with the risen heavenly Lord. The identity of a believer in the New Testament was primarily related to their willingness to assemble before Christ in order to recognise His primacy in salvation. There was also a willingness to humble themselves before, and then to live in response to, the Gospel of Jesus. Therefore the primary purpose of the ekklesia was to bring people into a relationship with Christ through the preaching and proclamation of the Gospel. The identity of the ekklesia was directly related to what it was doing—namely making sure that the Gospel was being preached and proclaimed.

When we are part of a denomination there is the possibility that we can base our identity on something other than the need to live in response to the Gospel of Jesus. Indeed it is quite possible for us to base our identity on a denominational church culture and, if we are not careful, our church culture can actually have a negative impact on our kingdom witness. George Hunsberger has made the following observation:-

We are never that distinct from our culture. We are participants in it. We are shaped by it, and it pervades our entire framework of meanings and motivations. It shapes in a particular way our capacities to hear and grasp and decide about the gospel that is coming to us from God, and it colors (sic) the form of all our responses to it.⁷

Culture has a strong influence on us; and that includes our church culture. Indeed denominational church culture can be so dominant that it can, by default, provide us with the framework for our identity. If there are times when we need assurance in our Christian life we could be tempted to take great comfort in knowing that we have a certain denominational heritage; or that we have accepted certain creeds and confessions; or that we have fulfilled certain expectations such as attending church twice on Sunday. While these aspects of our Christian life are valuable they cannot be the primary source of our identity as a believer. If they do become the primary source of our identity then our primary focus has shifted from who we are in Christ towards how well we measure up to a certain denominational structure.

This shift in focus does not only affect us as individuals, it can also affect each local church gathering. If our issues of identity include a significant aspect of meeting certain denominational requirements then it is possible that our kingdom expansion efforts will also include the desire to help people meet these same denominational requirements. The result being that, if those requirements are not met, kingdom seekers may not feel accepted enough to become members. Let me give, what will perhaps be, a controversial example.

In the Christian landscape there are a group of believers known as Reformed Baptists. One website dedicated to helping people understand the Reformed Baptist view gave this summary:-

We point to God's election being based upon God and not man. If God is sovereign then sinful man does not or cannot enter the picture as being the reason for election. It is this point that stresses the depravity of man. We say radical depravity because man is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1). Now it is easily seen that something had to happen or no one would ever be saved because sin leads to eternal death (Jas 1:15). That something was the accomplished atonement that Christ purchased on the cross. This atonement is then applied to those whom God calls to Himself by the power of the Holy Spirit. And it is because the Holy Spirit is given as a comforter we know as believers we will always endure to the end never to lose our salvation!⁸

This is nothing less than a summary of the five points of Calvinism. Now, add to this summary, the following questions from Keach's catechism which was written to clarify the theology of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith.

Q. 95. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption?
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are His ordinances, especially the Word, Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation. (Acts 2:41-42, 14:1; Rom 10:17; 1 Cor 3:5; Jas 1:18).

Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation?
A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them. (1 Cor 3:6-7, 12:13; 1 Pet 3:21). ⁹

What we have here is a group of believers who generally hold to the five points of Calvinism, who believe in predestination and who also have a covenantal view of the Scriptures.10 Yet these same people would find it difficult to be members of our church because of differing views on baptism. This is the case even though we ourselves admit that accepting the doctrine of infant baptism is not essential for salvation.

As I said, it is a controversial example—and using this example does not mean I am saying we abandon infant baptism. I’m also aware that using an example like this opens a whole range of questions. However, for the moment, let’s remember that the issue we are focussing on is the issue of identity, and how our denominationalism affects our identity. Could one of the reasons we are struggling to maintain numbers, while witnessing other churches increase at a large rate, be attributed to the way we identify ourselves as a church?

Asking the question does not mean I am pointing a finger of blame. No individual, nor any local church, deliberately sets out to base their identity on anything other than the person and work of Christ. Yet we need to be open to the possibility that such an outcome as inadvertently arisen. Robert Banks judiciously reflects on this problem when he says..

Unfortunately, because the denominational structures are described, or associated with, words like ‘church’, ‘religious’, ‘Christian’, they undergo a sacralisation that does not belong to them. Things can then go on in their name that are at variance with the gospel but remain unchallenged because they have apparent sanctity. ¹¹

Scripturally speaking our primary identity as believers and as an ekklesia must be based on knowing Jesus Christ and making Him known. In the New Testament the ekklesia is never defined in terms of comparison to another local assembly. Rather, the faithfulness of an ekklesia is quantified by the way it is seeking to fulfil its gospel mandate.12 A Scripturally functioning church cannot be defined merely in terms of creedal integrity, because creedal integrity by itself does not lead to kingdom growth. A Scripturally functioning church cannot be defined by its unreserved commitment to a denominational system. A Scripturally functioning church is a church which defines itself in terms of fulfilling the call of the gospel.

Concluding Observations

When we cast a glance at growing Evangelical churches which have a Calvinistic theology we cannot attribute their large growth, compared to the relatively small recent growth of the CRCA, to the difference between being independent as opposed to being denominational. The answer for us is not to become independent from a spiritual heritage that has been fought for, and firmly established, over centuries of spiritual development. The issue we need to focus on is one of identity, not structure. John Bolt and Richard Muller are right on the mark when they say..

The problem with the church’s evangelistic inadequacies is not the fault of an inadequate ecclesiology at all. It is a spiritual problem, not a structural one, and must be addressed not by reframing the church’s ecclesiology but by prayerfully seeking spiritual revival through forthright, bold evangelistic preaching. God’s people must have a change of heart and only the Word and Spirit can renew the church. 13
The two churches I mentioned at the beginning of this article are growing at an incredible rate because they continue to primarily identify themselves by their priority for the Gospel. Their kingdom impact, and the impact of churches like them, forces us to ask ourselves about our own identity. The question is, “Do we define our denominational structures, or do our denominational structures define us?”. The next question is, “If we discover that our identity as an ekklesia is misplaced, what are we going to do about it?”.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Moore Theological College is the training centre for Sydney Anglican Dioceses ministry candidates.
2 In 1996 our denomination had 9443 members. The membership figure for 2004 is 8791.
3 This is one of those Greek words which is used in the English language with almost the same spelling. In English an “ecclesia” is “a congregation or a church” while “ecclesiology” is “the study of church history and doctrine”.
4 Scholars are divided over the structure of the churches in Thessalonica the options being that there was only one church, or that there were several house-churches. There is not enough evidence in the Thessalonian correspondence to support, or reject, either suggestion.
5 These individual gatherings seem to coincide with the house church groups mentioned in 1 Cor 16:19b and Phlm 2.
6 Elmer L. Towns, Is the Day of the Denomination Dead? (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 1973), 49.
7 See George R Hunsberger, ‘Acquiring the Posture of a Missionary Church’, in The Church Between Gospel and Culture: The Emerging Mission in North America (ed. George R. Hunsberger and Craig Van Gelder; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 295.
8 Sourced at http://www.volstate.net/~credo/page12.html.
9 Sourced at http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/personal/baptism_faq.html.
10 “It is nothing new for Baptists to adhere to Covenant Theology. They have done so since the Seventeenth Century. We conceive of God's dealings with man in a covenantal structure. We believe that every covenant made with man since the Fall is unified in its essence. In all ages there has been one rule of life—God's moral law. God's standard of righteousness was the same before Moses received the Ten Commandments, and it is the same today. There has been but one way to salvation in all historic covenants since the Fall”. See http://www.reformedreader.org/rbb/chantry/bc.htm
11 Robert Banks, ‘Denominational Structures: Their Legitimacy, Vocation and Capacity for Reform’, In the Fullness of Time: Biblical Studies in Honour of Archbishop Donald Robinson (ed. David Peterson and John Pryor; Homebush: Lancer Books, 1992), 296-297.
12 The letters to the seven churches in Revelation, where John highlights the gospel failures or gospel faithfulness of each church, is a prime example of this approach. Note also the way that Paul still describes the church in Corinth as an ekkl_sia (1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1), this is in spite of the many theological, moral and spiritual problems which were plaguing the church. Yet, when the Gospel is at stake, Paul has some very strong words to say (cf. 2 Cor 11:3-6).
13 John Bolt and Richard A. Muller, ‘Does the Church Today Need a New “Mission Paradigm”?’, Calvin Theological Journal 31/1 (April 1996): 208.

All reports of problems and comments concerning this site: webmaster@trowelandsword.org.au

Privacy