Word of Salvation – Vol. 30 No. 11 – March 1985
The Marks Of The True Church
Sermon by Rev. S. Voorwinde, M.A., M.Th. on 1Tim.3:14,15
(Belgic Confession Art.29)
Scriptures: Mat.18:15-20; 1Cor.5:1-13; 1Tim.3:1-16
Suggested Hymns: 321; 280; 22; 426; 396.
Brothers & Sisters in Christ,
In this mobile age of ours, people often move into an area where there is no Reformed Church – sometimes they do it to find work, sometimes for study, sometimes it’s on a business assignment and sometimes it might even be in the search of adventure. Then inevitably the question arises: what church should I join up with? Where do I worship and find Christian fellowship when I’m in Darwin or Broken Hill or Queenstown or Alice Springs or Townsville or wherever?
Well, how would you answer a question like that? It becomes a complicated question, especially because denominational labels in Australia aren’t always that helpful. You might feel quite at home in one Presbyterian Church but not in another. You might go to one Anglican Church and hear a very edifying message, and then you go to another just a few miles down the road and it’s all very disappointing. So you can’t always direct somebody to a particular denomination. Here in Australia they vary too much within themselves. You can’t go by labels, you must go deeper. You must examine what’s behind the label.
So if you can’t judge a church by its name, any more than you can judge a book by its cover, what should you be looking for? How would you advise the person who’s moving to the East or the West for a few years and the town where he’s going to live doesn’t have a Reformed Church? What should he or she be looking for? What is the one thing that should stand out above all others?
Our text gives a very clear answer in that it describes the church not only as God’s household, but as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” What a lofty way to think about the church! It is the pillar and foundation of the truth. And when Paul writes this to Timothy he is addressing a local situation, a local church. Of course, such a church is a part of a larger whole, it is an expression of something bigger, but still it is the local church, however small or insignificant it may appear, the local church that in God’s Book is the “pillar and foundation of the truth.” Just as a pillar holds up a roof and a foundation holds up a building, so the church is as it were a platform from which the truth is displayed to the world. It is in the church that the truth is taught, the truth is believed and the truth is obeyed. The truth of God is not some abstraction. It is not a theory, but it comes to expression in the life and work of the local congregation.
And where that happens you have the true church. But now the question is: How does the truth come to expression in the church? Or, to put it in the words of the Belgic Confession, what are the marks of the true church? The Confession gives a very straight- forward answer: “The marks by which the true Church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the Gospel is preached; if it maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; and if church discipline is exercised in the punishing of sin.”
So here we have a test to tell whether or not we are dealing with true church, whether what we have is the pillar and foundation of the truth, or if it is something else. And this is a test that we should apply, not only to other churches, but to our own church as well. How do you know whether a church is a true church? By asking three questions:
(i) Does it preach the Gospel?
(ii) Does it properly administer the sacraments?
(iii) Does it exercise church discipline?
The first mark of the true church, then, is that it proclaims the truth, preaches the Gospel.
Surely this is the supreme task of the church. Calvin said that the Word is in fact the soul of the church. The church has no more important task than that of preaching the Word of God. So the first and foremost mark of the true church is faithfulness to the Word of God. Of course, this proclamation of the truth will not only come from the pulpit. It will also come through in catechism classes and Sunday School, in evangelism and home visitation. But surely its focal point is the pulpit. It should be most obvious in the pulpit. If the Gospel is not proclaimed there, that church is on its way out!
The function of the church as the pillar and ground of the truth is to uphold the truth. There have been times in the history of the church when it took that task seriously. During the first centuries of the Christian era and again in the age of the Protestant Reformation, the church was much more concerned about the truth than about its own immediate peace and prosperity. The truth was something for which these people were prepared to lay down their very lives. In comparison, how sad is the church’s plight today! The cancer of doctrinal indifference is gnawing away at the very life of so many churches. How many still have that glorious Biblical vision of seeing themselves as “the pillar and foundation of the truth”?
And how easy it is for the church to lose sight of its God-given purpose. How easy it is for the church to degenerate into a social club, or go into the entertainment business, or take sides on such aspects of economics or politics or science that are not dealt with in the Word of God. We have the task of proclaiming the Gospel. We have the task of proclaiming salvation. And surely that is an urgent task. Every day in every land there are people passing on into eternity without having heard that blessed name which is the only one given under heaven by which they must be saved. And how sad it is that there are so many churches which are doing many good things and are involved in all sorts of noble projects, but which do not proclaim salvation and do not preach the Gospel. They make no great effort to point people to Him who said: “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me” (John 14:6)
Brothers and sisters, may we never fall into that trap, that by doing what is good we forget to do what is best, which is to make known the Gospel that Jesus came into the world to live and to die on the cross so that we may be forgiven and have peace with God. That’s what we’re here for. That’s what God called us to, as a church to be the pillar and foundation of the truth.
But now the question is often raised and in fact it has been raised among ourselves: “All right, we agree that we’re in the business of proclaiming the truth, of teaching the doctrine of salvation. But whom do we direct this teaching to? Should it be mainly to Christians or non-Christians? Where should our priorities lie; should it be with teaching those inside the church or with evangelizing those outside? In other words, what deserves more attention: evangelism or teaching our own people?
Let me answer this question by using a few illustrations:
(i) Take the person who puts all the emphasis on evangelism, or take the church that stresses evangelism almost to the exclusion of everything else. That would be like the head of a family who is so moved with deep compassion for the emaciated children of his neighbour that he neglects to feed his own. His compassion is all well and good, but there’s something warped about it; it’s misplaced and out of perspective. Or to change the simile, he is like a general who leads his army to conquer other lands, but who fails to keep a strong base of operations at home. There’s a very real danger that after a while that general will no longer have an army.
Surely the church that neglects teaching the Word of God to its members won’t have for very long a membership that is zealous for missions and evangelism. And the church that fails to Biblically teach its youth will soon have no missionaries to send out, and certainly no missionaries who proclaim the only true Gospel.
(ii) But I also have another illustration and this should balance the whole thing out. Most of you will know that in Palestine there are two large lakes: the sea of Galilee in the north and the Dead Sea in the south. Water flows from the mountainous regions of Hermon and Lebanon into the Sea of Galilee and out of it through the River Jordan into the Dead Sea. The Sea of Galilee is a fresh-water lake and teems with life. The Dead Sea is said to be so dead that no living creature can possibly survive in its salty waters. Why the difference? The answer is that the Sea of Galilee gives as well as takes, while the Dead Sea only takes. Scientifically of course, this may not be the only reason for the difference, but the point illustrated is an excellent one. The church that only takes and never gives is sick unto death. In this respect a church can either be like the Sea of Galilee or like the Dead Sea. How sad is it that today there are churches which are dead for the simple reason that they never gave out. They seemed to have that primary mark of the true church. They preached the Gospel, but it was only to the converted and not to the unconverted. They were like the Dead Sea whereas they should have been like the Sea of Galilee.
So what should it be? Teaching those inside the church or evangelizing those outside? Surely there can be only one answer: that there should be a healthy balance of both. It may sound harsh, but the church which stresses missions and evangelism to the neglect of its members is committing suicide. On the other hand, the church which neglects the great commission of Christ is also in the process of dying. R.B. Kuiper, the late American Reformed scholar and pastor, has said it well in his beautiful book on the church called, “The Glorious Body of Christ.”:
“The church must maintain a proper balance between its task to the inside and its task to the outside. But this does not mean that it should do a little of each. It rather means that it should do much of both. As proper balance is essential for architectural beauty, so this particular balance will greatly enhance the glory of Christ’s church. Each of these tasks is glorious; combined in proper balance they are supremely glorious.”
So that’s the first mark of the true church – the preaching of the pure doctrine of the Gospel. And as she does this preaching, the church will seek to strike a healthy balance between teaching insiders and evangelizing outsiders, with the aim of making outsiders into insiders.
II. Now the second mark of the church has to do only with believers, and this is the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ. So the first test question for the true church is: Is the Gospel truly preached? And the second test question is: Are the sacraments properly administered?
Now we may be rather brief on this second point. But let me remind you that the sacraments of Baptism and Lord’s Supper are simply visual aids to the preaching of the Word. And so it follows very closely and very logically that if preaching the Word is the first mark of the true church, then the administration of the sacraments should be the second mark of the true church. There is nothing contained in the sacraments which is not contained in the Word. When the church administers the sacraments it proclaims visibly the very same Gospel which it proclaims audibly in its preaching. The preaching of the Word presents the Gospel to the ear-gate; the sacraments present the same Gospel to the eye-gate. So obviously the Word and sacraments go hand in hand. The one is the first and the other is the second mark of the true church.
Well, obviously, we’ve got to answer the question: What exactly is “the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ”? Does this mean that every church which baptizes by immersion and denies infant baptism cannot be a true church? Is that what we are saying? Or any church that has a different understanding than our own Confession on the meaning of the Lord’s Supper, does that mean it can never be a true church?
Now, here I think that the Reformed understanding is a generous one. It is not as narrow as it might appear or as we might think. These marks of the church were not meant to be exclusive, but inclusive.
Not only Reformed churches were supposed to pass these tests. At the time of the Reformation Lutheran and Zwinglian Churches were certainly included as true churches. Nowadays there would be many other churches as well; but there would be churches with the name “Reformed” which would fail the test.
So this second mark of the church should be fairly broadly interpreted. In Reformation days Calvinists, Lutherans and Zwinglians had different understandings of the Lord’s Supper, but they still accepted one another as true churches. And there’s the same kind of latitude these days when it comes to the kind of baptisms we accept as valid. As it says in Article 65 of the Church Order: “The baptism of a person who joins the Reformed Churches of Australia from another Christian church shall be held valid if it has been administered in the name of the triune God, by a person authorised by that denomination.”
So when it comes to this second mark of the church we must exercise latitude. We must be inclusive and not exclusive. We must allow for a fairly broad interpretation. But this does not mean that this is a test that has no teeth to it. Unfortunately there are many churches in Australia today that would fail this test. They do not administer the sacraments as instituted by Christ. There are still churches and sects that do not baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There are many churches that baptise children of unbelieving parents. On the signs outside some churches you will even find the words: “Baptisms by Arrangement.” And there are other churches which exercise no supervision whatever as to who attends the Lord’s Table. There are no warnings about partaking unworthily. The officers of the church make no attempt to discover whether a given visitor is actually a believer. A few years ago I was talking to a member of another denomination and without any qualms about it he told me that a Muslim had taken communion in their congregation.
So however broad and generous we might care to be in applying this second mark of the church, it is obvious that these practices were not instituted by Christ. The Lord’s Supper is not for non-Christians and baptism is not for the babies of unbelieving parents. So however simple you might like to make this second test there are still many churches today which fail it. It’s sad, but unfortunately that’s the way it is.
III. And this then brings us to the third mark of the true church which is the exercise of church discipline. This is also very closely tied to the preaching of the Word. Christ gave His church the two keys of the kingdom. The one is the preaching of the Word and the other is church discipline. These two keys open the doors of the kingdom to believers and close them to unbelievers. If you think Biblically it is just as inconceivable to have the Word without discipline as it is to have the Word without the sacraments. These things belong together: Word and sacraments, Word and discipline. And what God has joined together man is not to separate.
Yet in our permissive society, discipline is something we’ve tended to shy away from. It’s too painful. It’s too unpopular.
Maybe it is, but there are times when it is highly necessary. Surgery is always painful too, but in almost every case “it’s just what the doctor ordered.” There are times when the Great Physician orders spiritual surgery. Isn’t that what He’s saying about the sinner in Matthew 18: “If he refuses to listen even to the church. treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector” (vs.17). That can only mean that he is no longer to be regarded as a member of the body of Christ.
And then there was the man in Corinth who was guilty of incest. The apostle Paul writes about this with a sense of holy horror: “A man has his father’s wife and you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?” (1Cor.5:1,2). Again, in writing to Titus, Paul makes no bones about discipline: “Warn a divisive person once and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him” (3:10).
You see there are times when drastic surgery is needed even when it comes to the body of Christ in this world. He orders it Himself. From that body which is the local church a member may sometimes need to be removed. There are occasions when that is the only way of healing.
But having said this, we must hasten to add that the aim of church discipline must always be the salvation of the offender, never his destruction. To quote again from R.B. Kuiper:
“Discipline may unavoidably issue in expulsion from the church, but its aim must be the correction of the offender, not his elimination.” (p.309)
There may not always be a positive result, but that should be the aim. In the New Testament there is only one specific case of discipline: the immoral man at Corinth. He repented and was restored to the church. That must always be the goal of discipline. In an ideal case there will be healing for the church and repentance with the offender. But even if this does not happen, discipline is still justified if it is done in obedience to the command of Christ.
Before we leave this point let me draw your attention to a serious mistake which is often made in Reformed Churches, and that is to think that discipline is only the task of the elders. In Mat.18 Jesus puts this responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the members: “If your brother sins go and show him his fault just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over” (vs.15). From this Kuiper correctly concludes:
“The members of the church are primarily responsible for disciplining those who err. If my brother insults me, I have no right to report his sin to the session until I have done my utmost to get him to apologise. If I see my brother in an intoxicated condition I have no business telling others until I have done everything possible to bring him to repentance and all my efforts have proved futile. In fact, I sin against the law of love if I expose him sooner.” (p.312).
So that’s the third mark, church discipline, which is no doubt the most difficult and challenging of all because it tests the integrity of our fellowship with one another.
What then do we advise a person who moves out into the sticks where there’s no Reformed Church? Well, we suggest that he looks for three things:
(i) The sound preaching of the Word of God. (ii) The proper administration of the sacraments. (iii) The faithful exercise of discipline.
That would not make things easy for him. He is not supposed to sit in judgement, yet he must act in good conscience. He may join the Presbyterians or the Anglicans in their worship services; or if there is a Lutheran Church he may feel best at home among them. Yet, as far as membership is concerned he may have to decide to stay a “country member” of the closest Reformed Church and ask for tapes of their services. He may even start a nucleus of Reformational believers. Most Reformed Churches have begun in that way. But he will have to act humbly and prayerfully. We are not talking about a club or an association. We are talking about the Body of Christ, the Church of Jesus which is the pillar and foundation of the Truth.
Amen