Getting Nit-Picky with “The Church”

Recently, Pope Benedict XVI made the statement that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true Church; today I came across a thought-provoking post on another blog, “Inhabitatio Dei,” that challenges Protestants to think about their own definition of the Church. I thought I’d share my two cents. Here’s a copy of the post:

In light of the recent document promulgated by the Catholic church on the non-ecclesiality of protestant churches, I have started thinking about what exactly is it that makes the church?  What must be present for the church to be present?  For the Catholic and Orthodox communions, it is clearly apostolic sucession that is the constitutive element of the church (the difference between the two of them being Papal primacy).  For protestants, though?  I’m working on formulating a proposal myself, but first I wanted to see people take a crack at answering the question themselves.  So, what in your view constitutes the church?  When is a gathering of Christians truly a church?

When I thought about this question, my first instinct was to bring up the concept of a  dual nature of the Church; most Protestants today believe that the Church exists in both a “visible” and an “invisible” form (this idea was popularized during the Reformation). Under this view, the church exists in a visible form—the tangible group of professing Christians worldwide that meet regularly for worship, fellowship, and instruction—as well as an invisible form—God’s true elect, from a variety of denominations. In other words, the invisible Church includes only those who are really Christians at heart (as opposed to those who merely appear to be Christians externally). While the world sees the visible Church, it is impossible to know who truly makes up the invisible Church, because it is impossible to accurately judge the hearts of those who profess Christ.

Such a doctrine seems to make sense in today’s modern world; however, it has been under attack by Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and even some Protestants because it does not seem to be scripturally rooted. After all, Scripture never refers to an “invisible Church” or seems make any such distinction between the visible body and a universal, true Church of God’s chosen ones. Furthermore, Protestant Reformers of the 16th century had always taught that there was only one Church and seemed to invent the idea of a universal, ”invisible” body simply in order to justify their split with the Roman Catholic Church.

So, on the one hand, the concept of an “invisible Church” makes sense, but on the other hand, the Bible does not seem to support it. When I sought out Scriptural support of this doctrine, all of the verses cited seemed to support unity of God’s elect but never distinguished between the “visible” and “invisible” body of Christ. Did this mean that I should convert to Orthodox Christianity or Catholicism?

After pondering this issue for some time, I chose to relax and deeply consider the most basic meaning of the word “church.” Immediately, there arises a problem; the English word “church” is derived from the Greek κυρικον, which means “household of God.” However, when we come across the word “church” in our English Bibles, the Greek word being translated is not κυρικον, but instead, εκκλησια. This word, ecclesia in English characters, literally means “called-out ones.”

Therefore, when we think of “church,” we should first think in terms of a called-out assembly, before attaching any other meaning. When we look at the word in this manner, we have a much better foundational understanding of the church. If we were to replace the word “church” with “called out assembly” when we read our Bibles, we would likely avoid some confusion.

First, many point out that unlike κυρικον, the word ecclesia itself does not imply any level of organization or government. This is true; since by itself, ecclesia simply means “the called out ones,” it does not refer to an institution. However, it is also important to note that 1 Timothy 3:15 does equate the ecclesia with the “household of God” (the Greek here being οικω θεου). Therefore, for a great number of Scriptural reasons, Church leadership and authority must not be dismissed simply because the word ”church” does not necessarily imply any governmental system.

Second, understanding “church” as “called out ones” helps us to understand the Church at both a local and universal level. There does exist a singular, universal church, as indicated by numerous Scriptures (Matthew 16:18, Ephesians 1:22,  Colossians 1:24, Hebrews 12:23, etc.). However, this does nothing to support the Orthodox/Catholic belief that Apostolic descent (the ability to trace Church leadership back to the apostles, and therefore, Christ himself) is required of the “true” Church. At the same time, however, this does nothing to support the concept of a so-called ”invisible” church, either. “The called out ones” can refer to those who are “called out” worldwide, as well as those who are “called out” within a specific city or local community.

This brings me to my next point; if the ecclesia refers to those who are indeed “called out,” it specifically excludes those who are not actually Christians. In other words, only God’s elect make up the Church; nonbelievers who gather with believers —even if those nonbelievers claim to follow Christ—are specifically excluded as part of the ecclesia.

What this means is that “the church,” in its Biblical sense, refers only to believers in Christ. This does not mean there were not non-Christians gathered along with the church; Scriptures such as Galatians 2:4, 2 Peter 2:1, Jude 4, and so on indicate the presence of “false brothers” among the true brethren. However, these false teachers, unbelievers, and immoral men are never spoken of as part of the ecclesia, naturally because they are not “called out.” The ecclesia only refers to the saints.

Therefore, I must go against the concept of both a “visible” and an “invisible” Church simply because the concept is not found in Scripture; in reality, the “visible” Church and the “invisible” Church are one. There is no need for such a teaching on an “invisible Church.” True believers (God’s elect) are the only real Church, according to the most basic understanding of Scripture.

To be fair, however, our modern culture accepts a definition of “church” that refers (if not to a mere building) to any community that gathers in Jesus’ name, including the unsaved who attend. A “church” in our cultures is not limited to only the true believers; by this definition there are members of the “church” who are not actually saved. In this sense, there is an “invisible” Church of God’s true elect. However, because a Biblical idea of “church,” the ecclesia, teaches that only the “called out ones” are the church, we should read our Bibles accordingly.

So, back to my original question—what is “the Church?”

Ecclesiology, church government, and communality aside (there would be plenty to argue about there), the Church, in its most essential form, is the called out assembly of Jesus Christ. Those who are called in Christ Jesus are the Church. If we cling to this most basic definition of the Church, we are better-equipped to establish our ecclesiologies, as we seek to understand how the Gospel applies to God’s called out assembly.

Yes, the Church should appear as a devout community filled with worshippers submitting to one another in love and unity. What better way is there to reflect God’s calling?