Question and Response part 2

This is the second response I am sharing to the four questions I sent out to several different people. Take some time to read the response, thinking about why you agree or disagree. Come with an open mind, allowing the responses to stretch you, especially if you disagree, and make sure to weigh everything against the Word of God.

1. What is the purpose/role of the local church within the universal Church (the Body of Christ)?

Since Jesus and the Apostles did not set up a superstructure by which the entirety of Christianity is to be ruled, the local church serves as the practical gathering of local believers for worship, edification, education, mutual sanctification, accountability, discipline, and overall growth—all overseen by duly appointed shepherds.

The New Testament gives us the proper pattern of church. Each local assembly is under the authority of Christ and His Apostles. That authority is captured by Scripture, which now serves as the final and only infallible rule of faith in all matters. Under the authority of Scripture there are to be a plurality of elders (also called bishops, overseers, or pastors), all in equal authority to each other to govern the spiritual matters of the church at each local church. Likewise there is to be a plurality of deacons, all in equal authority to each other to govern the physical matters of the church so as not to distract or hinder the spiritual oversight of the elders. This can only function practically on a local level. That's why we see the church in the NT established under this model.

There is freedom for churches to work in associations or even denominations with other churches when beneficial, but outside of the local church there is no required authoritative framework.

The universal church is made up entirely of local churches. There is no such thing as a member of the body of Christ outside of being a member of the local church (with very few and Lord willing temporary exceptions). The local assembly of the saints is constantly encouraged and reinforced throughout the NT. This is God's design.

And let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more, as you see the day drawing near. (Hebrews 10:24-25)

It is the purpose and role of the local church to serve the kingdom of God by announcing and proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ, of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, of repentance from sin and trusting in Christ's work alone to be saved. The local church is where believers are to gather together to formally worship God and hear the proclamation of the gospel. In this way and as far as this is done the local church joins with the totality of the universal church in unified obedience to Christ.

2. What role (good or bad) do denominations play within the universal Church?

Contrary to popular belief denominations or even "tribes" are a very good thing. Many think of them as causing division, but this simply is not the case. Absolute doctrinal unity is in no way a real possibility before Christ returns. These differences are sometimes minor and sometimes significant. They can indeed at times even mark an entire denomination as a false church. The denominations are not the cause of the division; they simply identify the reality of differences that exist in the universal church. These differences are identified by what we call "tribes" or denominations. They are helpful because they give definition. Since Christians today are so anti-confessional, these tribes/denominations are the next closest thing we have to getting some definition on someone's beliefs. The more definition and understanding we have of each other's doctrinal positions the easier it is to determine when it is or is not appropriate to "work together".

One major problem with evangelicalism is its lack of depth (mile wide and an inch deep, as it has often been said), and eliminating/ignoring distinctions just makes that worse. It leads to the "least common denominator Christianity" where all one needs to do is give a thumbs up to Jesus and we're suddenly in unity. So I would want more "tribal-ness" in that sense (not necessarily more tribes). It would be awesome if there was a mass return to the historic confessions but we all know that probably won't happen, so I say rah-rah for tribes and denominations—not because it fosters divisions, but because it allows for wise and careful interactions across those boundaries.

It is incredibly useful to be able to use a denominational distinction such as PCUSA (Presbyterian Church USA) to know that that local assembly is extremely liberal and does not regard or utilize Scripture in an authoritative sense as Christ intended us to do. This marks them clearly from an OPC assembly (Orthodox Presbyterian Church) or PCA assembly (Presbyterian Church in America), both of which hold to the Westminster Standards, are entirely orthodox, and are frequently a healthy group of believers. These same denominational distinctions likewise work in Baptist circles to quickly and easily know the health of a local church. A Reformed Baptist Church is immediately identified as orthodox and holding to the London Baptist Confession while an American Baptist Church would need to be closely evaluated or suspect  due to that denominations historic liberality to Scripture. It's not an absolute guarantee to knowing if a church is healthy or not but it's a fantastic starting point. It allows for quickly ruling out entire swaths of churches that have abandoned the historic Christian faith or for cooperation with those that have steadfastly held to it.

No single denomination gets everything 100% correct (though I'd have to say Reformed Baptists are mighty close J), but there are many that are far closer on far more issues than others, and in that sense, in the here and now before Christ's return, denominations greatly serve the body of Christ.

3. What authority does the local church have within the universal Church?

Formally, none. A local church only has authority to act where Scripture grants that authority. It cannot exercise that authority outside of the local congregation just as any other church cannot impose restrictions or decisions on another local congregation. At times local churches can choose to work together in associations to collaborate for effectiveness in missions or outreach, etc., but that would not constitute authority over a local church. Likewise even accountability in leadership can be aided by these associations, but in the end no one can authoritatively supersede the authority of the local elders in a local church setting. So in that sense the universal church can be aided and served by healthy and orthodox local churches, but cannot be authoritatively corrected by them. It is Christ who is the head of the church so no local body is rightly it to rule over another, though they certainly can attempt correction through pointing to Scripture as Christ's revealed authority for all true churches. In that way a local church or even individual Christian can seek the repentance of another believer or group of believers, or admonish them with Scripture standing as their mutual authority.

4. Given the many different ideas, doctrines, beliefs, etc. that separate local churches, how do we encourage unity within the Body of Christ?

The only unity that can be expected throughout the universal body is unity in Christ. Indeed this happens by default essentially since every true church believes and teaches the gospel as laid out in the Bible and is de facto unified with every other true church that does that same. If they did not teach the gospel then they would not be a true church and we would not desire any unity with them. In this sense Christ's prayer in the garden of Gethsemane will be answered—the churches are all unified under the banner of Christ. So to foster that unity churches should primarily teach and preach the true gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. They should focus on achieving that unity through attention to the primary and core doctrines of the Christian faith.

However, a more in-depth unity still ought to be sought after. Second and third level doctrines are still important to maintaining a healthy church. Unity on these matters should still be sought through preaching and teaching all true doctrine. Getting some doctrine wrong may not make a church into a false church but it can still have serious repercussions in the life of the church and the individual believers therein. In that sense, even greater unity should be advanced through promulgation of these more in-depth doctrines.

There is no insignificant doctrine. Everything taught in Scripture is both relevant and important. In these postmodern days of certain uncertainty, attention to the NT's teaching as a whole is all the more needed. Great damage has been done to local congregations that seek to ignore harder or less essential doctrine for the sake of a façade of unity. This inevitably leads to a downgrade of the faith as a whole. Not only is this being seen today but it has historically always been the case—when doctrine is not emphasized it is backfilled by man-made rules and ideas. Again, this may seem counter intuitive to fostering unity but biblical unity is based on truth, not an absence of disagreement. If true biblical unity is to be encouraged then it calls for teaching and more distinction on any and all doctrines. Thus this includes both the proper recognition of those that matter most and that all of them matter.