Why the Marks of the Church Need the Mission by Michael S. Horton

The tendency of contemporary evangelicalism, however, is to reverse this flow of gifts. I recently surveyed a number of recent systematic theologies by evangelicals, both conservative and progressive, and they all referred to baptism and the Lord’s Supper as “means of commitment” rather than “means of grace,” adding that there is no reason to limit these to two ordinances. Is this really any different from the Second Vatican Council’s definition of the Mass as “the work of the people”?

As Paul makes clear, it is our natural tendency even as Christians to prefer being actors rather than receivers of salvation. Even if we do not change the message in a Pelagianizing direction, we can transform the methods into a form of self-salvation. At least Charles Finney, the famous nineteenth-century revivalist, was consistent in this respect. Heaping scorn on the doctrines of original sin, the substitutionary atonement, justification, and the new birth as a miraculous work of the Spirit, Finney believed that salvation was entirely dependent on human decision and effort. The title of one of his most popular sermons, “Sinners Bound to Change Their Own Hearts,” summarizes his theology.

When the gospel is a call to moral improvement, the only criterion for the methods employed is pragmatic success. Whereas the Heidelberg Catechism reminds us that “the Holy Spirit creates faith in our hearts by the preaching of the holy gospel and confirms it by the use of the holy sacraments,” Finney was convinced that faith and repentance could be “induced” by “the most efficient means” that our pragmatic minds could conceive. Finney’s “new measures” replaced the means of grace. “The Great Commission just said, ‘Go,’” said Finney. “It did not prescribe any forms. It did not admit any…And [the disciples’] object was to make known the gospel in the most effectual way…so as to obtain attention and secure obedience of the greatest number possible. No person can find any form of doing this laid down in the Bible.”¹ Defining the church as “a society of moral transformers,” Finney consistently related what he regarded as the mark of the true church to its mission. Where Reformation Christianity identifies the true church with God’s activity through his means of grace, for Finney the true church is identified with our agency.

Many evangelicals—and certainly Reformed people—will not want to be as consistent as Finney. In his own day, Presbyterians were divided over whether they could be Calvinists in theory and Arminians in practice. Eventually, the New School Presbyterians alleviated this anxiety by simply becoming Arminians in both. The Apostle Paul and Charles Finney stand in stark contrast to each other’s doctrines and practices, but both were utterly consistent. We simply cannot adopt a biblical view of the church’s marks and an Arminian (or Pelagian) view of the church’s methods and mission. Inconsistency on this point is evident across the spectrum today. A few examples will suffice in making this point.

“Self-Feeders”: Where Pelagianizing Logic Leads
In 2007, Willow Creek Community Church provoked media attention when it published the results of its marketing analysis that led its leaders to conclude that its widely influential model of church growth was flawed.² Senior pastor Bill Hybels responded to the research by saying that it “did not shine brightly on our church.” “[A]mong the findings,” he writes, “one out of every four people at Willow Creek were stalled in their spiritual growth or dissatisfied with the church—and many of them were considering leaving.” The report “has revolutionized the way I look at the role of the local church,” he adds, “…causing me to see clearly that the church and its myriad of programs have taken on too much of the responsibility for people’s spiritual growth.”³

For Willow Creek, spirituality is largely measured by how much people do. The church’s mission is to provide “opportunities to connect with others,” “small group opportunities,” and “basic personal spiritual practices.” Those who are “close to Christ” (level 3) need “advanced personal spiritual practices” and “Christ-centered” members (level 4) require “a wide range of serving and mentoring opportunities.”⁴ It is unclear why Christ is even a necessary referent, since these means of commitment could as easily be applied to any religious or self-help group. There is no mention of anyone needing to hear the Word of Christ or be baptized or receive Christ in the Supper. Although each level is identified in relation to Christ, all of the emphasis is on their practices and serving rather than on God’s.

So why would the most active participants (“Christ-centered”) be the most dissatisfied with the church and their own spiritual progress? That was the question that puzzled the church’s leadership. “The quick answer: Because God ‘wired’ us first and foremost to be in growing relationship with him—not with the church.”⁵ Their conclusion is that God meant for his people to move from dependence on the ministry of the church to “personal spiritual practices,” which include “prayer, journaling, solitude, studying Scripture—things that individuals do on their own to grow in their relationship with Christ.” As believers mature, they should shift their interest from the church to their own private activities.⁶ “The research strongly suggests that the church declines in influence as people grow spiritually.”⁷ Those who are “fully surrendered” are likened to young adults who no longer need the “parenting” of the church and can now fend for themselves.⁸ “Our people need to learn to feed themselves through personal spiritual practices that allow them to deepen their relationship with Christ…We want to transition the role of the church from spiritual parent to spiritual coach.” The authors suggest the analogy of a trainer at the gym who provides a “personalized workout plan.” ⁹

What I find remarkable is that those who identified themselves as “stalled” said, “I believe in Christ, but I haven’t grown much lately,” and the dissatisfied said, “My faith is central to my life and I’m trying to grow, but my church is letting me down.” ¹⁰ These highly-committed respondents even said that they “desire much more challenge and depth from the services” and “60 percent would like to see ‘more in-depth Bible teaching.’”¹¹ However, the take-away message for the authors is not that Willow Creek should provide a richer ministry, but that the sheep must learn to fend for themselves: “self-feeders,” who need to be more engaged in private spiritual practices.¹²

In spite of having defined itself largely in antithesis to the megachurch movement, the Emergent Church movement is currently becoming friendlier to its rival, as the recent participation of Brian McLaren at a Willow Creek conference attests. Like McLaren and other Emergent leaders, Doug Pagitt encourages us to think of ourselves and the lives we lead as the gospel. ¹³ Since the gospel is our following Christ’s example, Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus can be followers of Jesus without becoming Christians, according to McLaren.¹⁴ The Bible is “part of a conversation, not a dead book from which I extract truth.” ¹⁵ God’s Word does not come to us from outside; believers “have the truth of God within them,” writes Pagitt. In fact, “Every person has experience, understanding, and perspective; there is no one who is totally devoid of truth.” ¹⁶

At stake in this loss of sola scriptura (by Scripture alone) are the corollaries: solo Christo (by Christ alone), sola gratia (by grace alone), sola fide (through faith alone), and soli Deo gloria (to God alone be glory). These stakes are not too high for Brian McLaren, for example, who scolds Reformed Christians for “their love-affair for the Latin word ‘sola.’”¹⁷

According to Emergent leader Dan Kimball, the church is not a place. “The church is the people of God who gather together with a sense of mission (Acts 14:27). We can’t go to church because we are the church.”¹⁸ From this Kimball draws the familiar contrast between evangelism (mission) and the marks of the church (means of grace). Appealing to Darrell Guder’s The Missional Church, Kimball thinks that things went wrong at the Reformation.

The Reformers, in their effort to raise the authority of the Bible and ensure sound doctrine, defined the marks of a true church: a place where the gospel is rightly preached, the sacraments are rightly administered, and church discipline is exercised. However, over time these marks narrowed the definition of the church itself as a ‘place where’ instead of a ‘people who are’ reality. The word church became defined as ‘a place where certain things happen,’ such as preaching and communion.¹⁹

In this way, however, the work of the people displaces the work of God.