|
(continued from previous page)
except the authority of the Catholic Church
moved me" (Contra Manichoei). It led Savonarola, in
speaking of a pope who commanded something contrary to the
Gospel, to say, "Not the Roman Church, but thou errest."
It kept Martin Luther, and the English Parliament, and the
majority of the Reformers, from the true concept of restoration.
They refused to reject the necessity for linkage with the
historic "visible church." The concept insidiously
permeates the thinking of brethren today who hold that "the
great middle section" of the church just could not be
wrong. Somehow, the "church" becomes a thing apart
from the people who make it up. The people can err, but not
"the church."
 After
centuries of Roman institutionalism, John Wyclif struck at the
core of Catholicism when he redefined the nature of the
church. Schaff says, "Scarcely a writing has come down
to us from Wyclif's pen in which he does not treat the subject,
and in his special treatise on the Church, written probably in
1378, it is defined more briefly as the body of all the elect...
Of this body, Christ alone is the head" (V. 6, p.331). We
would differ with Wyclif's concept of "the elect" but
he did make the church a spiritual body, not dependent
upon ties with an historic visible society. God's people are
"visible," and function in the flesh to serve Him; but
an acceptable association with a certain local church is not
prima facie evidence that we please the Lord.
The
Swiss Anabaptists understood this point. Schaff says they
"organized on the voluntary principle select congregations
of
| |
baptized believers, separated from the
world and from the State." "The demand of rebaptism
virtually unbaptized and unchristianized the entire Christian
world, and completed the rupture with the historic Church"
(V.8, pp. 71-77). Schaff, a "historic" church man, did
not agree with the Anabaptists, but he recognized the vital role
these differing concepts had in history.
What
did Christ buy when he bought "the church"? Was it not
individual men and women, lost in sin? What did he build when he
built "the church"? Is not this a figurative
representation of individuals as "lively stones, a
spiritual house" resting upon Christ, the foundation? He
cleanses the church much as a rancher dips a "flock"
of sheep — neither church nor flock are cleansed apart
from what is done to individual people or sheep, but in the
identical process. When humble, faithful individuals are made
free from sin "with the washing of water by the word"
(Eph. 5:25-27) the Lord is cleansing His church.
The
group of men and women who covenant together, build a place of
meeting, and worship and serve God for a time, may leave their
first love (Rev. 2:4-5). They may continue to occupy the
physical property, and wear the same name, but the Lord's church
does not consist, per se, of such things. Its nature is
different! It is begun, propagated, and continues only as the
Christ is enthroned in our hearts.
Deprecating
"the church"? NOT AT ALL. We seek to define its
nature, that Christ may be thereby glorified.
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
