In the last several months, a number of people have written or phoned to ask me why I and the other men of Geneva Ministries are remaining in a tiny Presbyterian denomination, rather than joining a large, historic, liturgical body. The question arises, it seems, because in my writings and those of some of the other men associated with Geneva Ministries, we have shown an appreciation for historic forms of worship and have emphasized the need for catholicity. As a result, the question comes basically to this: “Why do you men stay in a little sect on the fringe of Christendom?”
Sometimes this question is asked by Presbyterians who wish we would just leave them alone and become Episcopalians, which is what they think we really are (though we aren’t). Sometimes this question is asked by friendly Episcopalians and others who would like for us to team up with them. Sometimes the question comes from young men in a quandary about what they should do, which church they should join, where they should throw in their lot.
Because this question is important, and because we at Geneva Ministries want to make our position as clear as possible, I have elected to interrupt my series on “Biblical Church Government” to discuss this matter, albeit in a loose and discursive manner.
The Fringe
People who look only on the outward, sociological appearance tend to think of small, conservative denominations as on the “fringe” of the church. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is true that such a denomination as the Association of Reformation Churches, to which I belong, is on the fringe of the heretical, gnostic, modernist “mainline” churches in America, but it is also true that the ARC is smack-dab in the center of historic catholic orthodoxy. It is the “mainline” churches, with their blatant denial of the fundamental articles of the faith, that are on the fringe of the historic church. (It rather prejudices the discussion, doesn’t it, to refer to these groups as “mainline”?)
But what about the fine liturgies in these churches? Isn’t that in the middle of historic orthodoxy? Not at all. The mere performance of outward rites is not a criterion of orthodoxy or catholicity. The gnostics of the ancient world had really nice liturgies, and so do modern gnostics. Gnostics use a lot of language in common with true Christians. It is only to the superficial eye that gnostics appear to have a connection with the historic church. (Gnosticism is the great counterfeit of Christianity. Gnosticism replaces the facts of the history of creation and redemption with philosophical ideas. The Apostles’ Creed, in that it simply recounts history, is the premier anti-gnostic document of the church. The most famous modern gnostic was Karl Barth, and his followers are legion.)
In fact, of course, the performance of the cultus of worship for its own sake is the essence of mystery cult religion.1 In Christianity, it is Truth that calls men together to worship. Worship is a response to Truth. Thus, the meager “widow’s mite” worship of an evangelical church is acceptable in God’s eyes, while the glories of a gnostic cult only add to the damnation of its participants. This is no reason, of course, not to work to enhance the glory of true Christian worship, but we must not forget that liturgical splendor is in itself no criterion for the selection of a church—Thomas Howard to the contrary!2
Thus, while liturgically the humble evangelical church may appear on the fringe, it is not, for Truth rather than glory is the first criterion of catholic orthodoxy.
Visible Orthodoxy
A church that is worthy of the name catholic and orthodox must maintain the integrity of the faith and recognize other Christians. The fact is that none of the “mainline” denominations in America maintain visible orthodoxy at all, as denominations. That is, looking not at particular local churches but at the denomination as a whole, such groups are not Christian churches, but gnostic counterfeits. Their claim to historic continuity with the churches of the Reformation is as ridiculous as the claim of Jeroboam the son of Nebat. He claimed that calf worship was the true orthodox faith, and he claimed continuity with the church of the past. He claimed “apostolic succession.” He had outward splendor. He had the big, establishment church with maxi-influence. He died.
The Sanhedrin made the same claim. They had the historic church buildings, including the Temple. They had all the universities. They had the scrolls. They had the Ph.D.’s. But Jesus told them that if they had understood the faith, they would have recognized Him. They didn’t. They persecuted the true church. Their buildings were burned down. Their historical records were burned with them. Their “apostolic succession” disappeared. The spoils went to the true church.
The fact that the “mainline” churches are, analyzed wholistically, nothing more than cults, on the same level as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, does not mean that each local church within those bodies is a cult, nor does it mean that each local pastor or priest is an anti-Christ. There may be a number of good reasons why a pastor remains in an apostate denomination. One good reason is so that he can continue to minister to ignorant saints who happen to be members of a local church within that apostate denomination. And, of course, this fact means that the Protestant Episcopalians, the United Methodists, the United Presbyterians, and all the rest are not exactly in the same position as the Mormons, for there are Christians in their midst.
At the same time, one would have to be blind as a bat not to realize that these denominations, on the whole, are committed to anti-Christ. Over a long period of time, for years, they have denied the fundamental articles of the faith. Over a long period of time, for years, they have financed and propagated murder (abortion). They have been challenged repeatedly, and have refused to repent. Thus, their claims to be contemporary expressions of the historic church have been shown false countless times.
While there are good local churches within such bodies, it is a fact all the same that you cannot be a member of a gnostic denomination without its having some influence on your children, through summer camps and the like. Do you want your children singing in the choir with lesbians and homosexuals? Do you want to run the risk of catching AIDS through the communion wine, as was recently reported happening in a large Episcopal church? Faithful Christians in such churches—and there are many—have a much harder row to hoe than those in more catholic and orthodox churches. As T. S. Eliot argued in his essay “The Idea of a Christian Society,” there are real spiritual benefits to living as a Christian within a context where the standards of the Kingdom are continually reinforced, as opposed to living isolated in a context hostile to the Truth. In my opinion, there is no reason at all for a local Christian church to remain part of a gnostic denomination. The twentieth century has seen the exodus of the orthodox from the gnostic denominations, the current exodus from the Protestant Episcopal church being only the latest.
The other criterion of catholic orthodoxy is that a church recognizes Christ. That is, the church recognizes Christ as present in assemblies other than its own. Where baptism is performed in the name of the Trinity, and where Christ is made visible in the Lord’s Supper, and where the Word is proclaimed (to some degree at least), there is Christ. The rulers of that church may be apostate, but not being Donatists, we recognize that Christ may be ministered by an apostate, for it depends not on the man but on the ministry (1 Cor. 9:27). Thus, baptisms performed by United Methodists are valid, and communion served by a Protestant Episcopalian is valid. Christ may be reviled in some of these churches, but He is still present, and thus the curse is coming! (Maybe already here—note 1 Cor. 11:30 and the AIDS story noted above!)
This grant of catholicity is what separates churches from sects. Recently, some friends visited an Eastern Orthodox church, one of the groups that claims that it preserves the true, historic faith while everyone else has departed from it. They were not allowed to communicate, since the Eastern Orthodox church does not recognize other churches. This is the heart of sectarianism, and this practice alone totally invalidates the Eastern Orthodox claim to hold the heart of the historic faith. Of course, this sectarian practice does not mean that the Eastern Orthodox churches are not churches, but it does invalidate their claim to be the best representation of the orthodox Christian faith.
The True Church Syndrome
The fact that visible orthodoxy is seriously impaired in “mainline” churches, and also Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, is sufficient in my opinion to invalidate their claims to be in the center of the faith. To the extent that they deny Christ in confession or in practice, they are on the fringe. Note: “to the extent”—that is important. Revelation 2 and 3 describe churches in a variety of conditions. My point, again, is this: It is ridiculous for Sardis to claim that it is more faithful than Philadelphia just because it is older or bigger!
There is another avenue of approach to this problem that yields the same conclusion. Robert Webber has authored a book, not yet available, entitled Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail. Without knowing exactly what he has written, I know that Mr. Webber’s basic observation is correct: There is a tremendous interest on the part of evangelicals today in the historic forms of the church, both governmental and liturgical. This wonderful and healthy interest in historic orthodoxy is translating, unfortunately, into a naïve belief that one or another modern “mainline” church is the reservoir of that orthodoxy. Thus, I hear that we ought to go into the Protestant Episcopal church and work within, or to Rome, or to Eastern Orthodoxy.
There are two points to be made here. The first is that it is impossible to assess the claims of these groups to be the true, historic church. The second is that none of these churches preserves the historic faith unsullied (a point we made above, and to which we shall return).
One man says we should all join the Protestant Episcopal church, since it was the original church and has “apostolic succession,” though it seceded from Rome a few centuries back. Well, (1) Rome has never granted that that secession was lawful. (2) The Protestant Episcopal church may be the original one in England, but hardly in America. Maybe we all are obligated to become Puritan Congregationalists, if mere historical age is what matters! (3) All churches have apostolic succession, because that succession does not take place in the servant priesthood (ordained clergy) but in the royal priesthood (all believers).3
Of course, for another man, the Protestant Episcopal church is suspect. He hears the call of Louis Bouyer, former Lutheran pastor, that we need to join Rome. Rome is the True Church. Jesus prayed for unity, and we need to get away from this fragmentation of Protestantism.
Ah, says a third man, but Rome is herself schismatic, adding filioque to the Creed without the agreement of the whole East. Only Eastern Orthodoxy has preserved the faith of the Seven Councils without addition. Anyone interested in the historic, unified Church must go East!
But why stop here? There are churches alive today, such as the Coptic and the Armenian, who did not go along with all seven Councils. In their eyes, Eastern Orthodoxy is schismatic. Moreover, Armenia was the first nation to convert to the faith. Thus, it stands to reason that we must all join the Armenian church!
Now, it may be offensive to some that I have written this reductio ad absurdum, but it cannot be helped. The fact is that this line of argument is absurd. It must be supplemented with arguments about truth. That is, are the doctrinal positions of Rome, or of Eastern Orthodoxy, correct or not? Once we are into this discussion, however, we are willingly on “protestant ground,” because we’ll have to measure things by the Bible. The true churches will be those who preserve the Biblical faith.
It is possible to expand the discussion of this issue by calling attention to the fact that the ascended Christ has sent gifts to His church, which gifts are gifted men (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors & teachers). Thus, it is important that our church be in the true tradition of gifted men God has given to the church for her guidance. To despise that tradition, as something real but secondary to the Bible, would be to despise the Spirit.
True. But the best scholars today universally admit that neither Anglicanism, nor Rome, nor the East have preserved that tradition well. Russian Orthodox scholar Alexander Bouyer’s Introduction to Liturgical Theology well shows the corrupting influence of mysteriological piety on the post-Constantinian church. Roman Catholic scholar Louis Bouyer readily admits throughout his writings that the Protestant Reformation was a movement sorely needed because of the ethical and liturgical corruption in the medieval church. Bouyer also points out that the liturgy of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer is less catholic in its view of the Supper than was the Form of Prayers of John Knox!4
This point is worth expanding upon. Churches using the Book of Common Prayer are strapped with prayers that are more Zwinglian than Calvinian, and thus farther removed both from the early church and from the great tradition than John Knox’s original formulary. Moreover, the service of Holy Communion in the Prayerbook removes the Gloria in Excelsis from its place after the Kyrie, and puts it at the end of the service. In the 1928 Prayerbook, the word “holy” is unaccountably dropped from the Nicene Creed, in the phrase “one holy catholic and apostolic church.” The Sanctus is chopped in half, and the Agnus Dei is dropped. This is a radical alteration of the historic service, an alteration that the Lutherans, for instance, did not make.
My point is not that such alterations are sinful, or that there is something wrong with such groups as the Reformed Episcopalians or the United Episcopalians, to mention two orthodox bodies. My point rather is that with such alterations in its liturgy, the Anglican church’s claim to historical continuity does not measure up very well next to the claims of others. The Puritans had a more catholic understanding of the Eucharist. Lutherans have preserved the traditional structure of worship better.
Thus, measured by tradition, who is the True Church? Who indeed! Our worship at Westminster Presbyterian Church in Tyler follows the historic structure of Western worship. Our understanding of the Eucharist is Calvinian and thus catholic. Measured by tradition, we are at the heart of the true church!
Tradition, however, is not the proper measure.
The Facts
The reason, in my opinion, for confusion over these issues is that men have a hard time admitting to the Truth of the Facts of the Message of the gospel. I want in this section to set out what I regard as three incontrovertible Facts that men tend to ignore.
1. It is a fact that we live in a theocracy in America. Christ is King of America today. His laws are in force, and anyone who violates these laws receives punishment from the King in this life. Anyone who does not believe this is simply insane, because it is what the New Testament clearly teaches. We live in a country that is little better than an insane asylum, because most people go around pretending that Christ is not King, and that they can break His laws with impunity. Such people are crazy. They are not adjusted to the truth about the real world in which they live. Our goal is to persuade men of this truth, so that they will stop suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. They need to recognize the fact that Christ is King, and bow the knee. When that happens, the judgments of the Kingdom will turn to blessings. We don’t make Christ King; we recognize that He is already King.
2. It is a fact that the Church of Jesus Christ is unified. Jesus prayed the Father in John 17 that we might be one, and the Father does not deny the petitions of the Son. Therefore, we are one. We eat of one Christ. We hearken to one Word. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, etc. Anyone who denies this is insane, not adjusted to reality. Thus, we cannot unite the church, and church unity is not a problem, any more than we can make America a theocracy.
What we need is for people to stop pretending that the church is not united, because such a pretense is a denial of the truth. When men recognize the truth, and stop being fooled by vain appearances, then the judgment upon the church will be turned to blessing.
To recognize the truth of church unity means to grant prima facie recognition to the orders and government of all other Trinitarian churches, even to the church in Sardis. It means allowing to communion any baptized person who has not been excommunicated and who is a member of a local body. We cannot make the church united by negotiation. Rather, we must simply confess that the church is in truth one, and act accordingly.5
3. It is a fact that the church is brought into being by the work of the Spirit, who proceeds from eternity into time at every moment of time. Thus, it is not historical succession that matters, but Spiritual procession. This explains how churches with a long history can apostatize, and new churches arise. Ultimately it is faithfulness, not history, that counts. The Bible tells us that the new birth is not by blood (historical succession) but by the will of God (the Spirit). Now, because God’s plan involves historical maturation, historical succession has a real, though secondary, importance. We baptize our children, confessing that they are outside the Kingdom by birth, but that God is placing them into the Kingdom by baptism. This creates an apparent historical succession, but a succession in which there are continual series of complete breaks. Each new generation is born dead in trespasses and sins. Each new generation must be brought into the Kingdom, by baptism initially and by perseverance thereafter. Thus, succession is only a visible effect, not a cause. Spiritual procession is the cause.
Claims of apostolic succession by themselves, then, are not only meaningless, they can easily become idolatrous, substituting temporal continuity for the discontinuous new-creating work of the Spirit. According to the Creed, only the Spirit is the “Lord and Giver of life.”
Thus, we should not be surprised when it turns out to be relatively new churches that are the true heirs of the wealth of the past. It is what we should expect, when we realize that our God “makes all things new.”6
Failure to keep these facts, these truths, in mind leads to perversions in practice. Failure to keep in mind that Christ is already King leads “New Christian Right” activists to place too much emphasis on political activity as a way of making America Christian. Failure to keep in mind that the church is already one leads conservative ecumenists to place too much emphasis on negotiated unions. Failure to keep in mind that the church is constantly being re-created leads to looking for the true church in historical institutions rather than in places where truth and life are found. We should have political action; we should labor to make our unity more visible; and we should appreciate the historical heritage of the church; but we must only do so out of a firm understanding of the secondary nature of these things.
Encouraging Words
We find a lot of encouraging words coming from some quarters of Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and “mainline” Protestantism today. There does seem, here and there, to be new life in some places. Some remarkable and very “Reformed” books have been written by such men as Alexander Schmemann (Eastern Orthodox), Louis Bouyer (Roman Catholic), and others. Bible-believing Christians find themselves marching against abortion shoulder to shoulder with Roman Catholics, while many Bible-believing friends refuse to do anything. As a result, we live in a time of sifting and change.
At the same time, the fact that there are a few good men in the Roman church, and the fact that there are Bible studies springing up in many places, does not mean that the Roman church represents the ideal of catholic orthodoxy. In fact, the Roman church is still pervaded by superstition and heresy, a fact obscured in France, England, and America because of the heavy Protestant influences there. Face to face with revolutionary atheism, and inheriting a tradition of Huguenots and Jansenists, French Catholic thinkers have moved in a very “Protestant” direction during the last century. That is not the case in Spain, Latin America, Poland, etc., etc., etc. Face to face with communism, some Russian Orthodox theologians have moved in a “Protestant” direction, but that is not true in Greek Orthodoxy.
By and large, Roman Catholicism today presents its people with a choice between bleeding statues and revolutionary Marxism. Would that this were not so, and maybe it will change. Or, maybe such men as Bouyer and his kin will be driven out of Rome eventually. (And I should point out that in spite of many good things in some areas, Bouyer’s writings are thoroughly corrupted with JEDP views of how the Bible came to be written.)
Thus, why should I leave my church, which clearly witnesses to catholic orthodoxy, to join a Sardis-like church in which that witness is almost totally obscured? To do so would be to move from the center to the fringe. Yes, the Roman church has a powerful witness, but it is a witness that is 10% gospel and 90% error. Hopefully that is changing, but it has not changed yet. A few encouraging words from a handful of Roman theologians does not indicate that Rome has moved very far from the fringe yet. I’d rather stay in the catholic center.
David’s Band
The true churches today are not in positions of outward leadership and glory. In all the “mainline” churches Saul is presently on the throne, because men have put him there. Biblical churches, working for renewal, are in exile, but not an exile to the fringe! David is anointed king, and we are with him. Year by year, David’s band is growing as true churches, dispossessed by Saul’s armies, are joining it. In a few more years, Saul will pass away, and it will be made manifest who are the true heirs of the historic church. Until that day I’d personally rather be with David than with Saul.
After all, Saul has no interest in fighting Philistines or Amalekites, or in driving Jebusites and Pornites from the citadel of Zion. If you want to be involved in fighting Geshurites, Girzites, and Abortionites you need to be at the center of things in Ziklag Bivouac with David. Saul and his men are too busy out on the fringe in Endor consulting the spirits with necromancer Bishop Pike to be effective for the Kingdom.
The Kingdom starts small, like a mustard seed. The denomination of which I am a part, the Association of Reformation Churches, is tiny. So are other faithful denominations. We live in a time of re-creation, and so we start small. Let us not despise the day of small things.
James Jordan is scholar-in-residence at Theopolis. This article originally appeared at Presbyterian Heritage.
NOTES
- On this, see Alexander Schmemann, Introduction to Liturgical Theology (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1966), and my essay on “Christian Piety: Deformed and Reformed,” The Geneva Papers (New Series), No. 1. ↩︎
- In a recent Christianity Today interview, Howard explained that his basic reason for joining the Roman Catholic Church was its institutional and liturgical glory and fullness. ↩︎
- I hope to return to a discussion of apostolic succession in a future essay, but for present let me call attention to the marvelous discussion in Geddes MacGregor, Corpus Christi (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1958), pp. 210f. ↩︎
- Bouyer, Eucharist (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1968), pp. 419ff. ↩︎
- What if a man is wrongfully excommunicated? Suppose a man applies for membership in our church who has been excommunicated by a Baptist church. He claims that he was excommunicated unlawfully because he had come to believe in predestination and infant baptism. In that case, we would grant prima facie recognition to the decision of the Baptist church, and talk with the pastor to make sure there was not some other reason for the excommunication. If, in fact, the man had been wrongfully excommunicated, and things could not be worked out, then we would simply have to refuse recognition of this one particular action. That would not require us, however, to declare the church totally apostate. Nowadays, of course, the opposite is true. If a man is declared excommunicate, he goes to another church, and the new church gleefully rejoices in the opportunity to shaft her sister and takes the man in without making any investigation whatsoever. ↩︎
- It might be objected that the analogy between the needed new birth of each new generation of men and the “making new” of the church is a questionable analogy. In fact, though, there is no such thing as “church” apart from God and people. The word “church” refers to people under the aspect of a certain quality. Thus, the measure of a given church is in terms of what its people are, as in Revelation 2 and 3. If the people are not born again, the church is dead, and Christ has departed. Thus, the principle of historical discontinuity (death and resurrection) applies both to individuals and to churches, as I have set it forth. ↩︎