Who defines the church?

Who defines the church? As you look around the landscape of churches today, you’ll find four broad answers to this question: the future, the present, the past, or the Bible.

First, the future. The biggest names in evangelicalism typically argue that the future ought to define the church. That is, we should allow the wants and desires of future generations to guide the appearance, the doctrine, and the functioning of the church. After all, don’t you want to reach the next generation?

I grew up in a Southern Baptist church. I graduated from a Southern Baptist seminary. I have pastored three Southern Baptist churches. That puts my church experience squarely in “evangelicalism.” Without question, the dominant voice in evangelical culture today insists that future generations must be the ones to define the church. That is, the dominant mindset in the biggest and best known evangelical churches demands that we change the way we’ve always done things in an attempt to reach the next generation. This hamster-wheel of change leaves evangelicalism and evangelicals constantly chasing the next best thing. It results in evangelicals constantly trying to hop on the next wave of change before the church down the street all in an attempt to gain a competitive edge. The buzz-words of this movement are relevance, innovation, contemporary, modern, and change. Those who think this way are proud to be part of new kinds of churches that are nothing like your grandma’s church.

Second, the present. The loudest voices in theological liberalism typically argue that the present ought to define the church. That is, we should allow the accepted wisdom of our culture to shape the appearance, the doctrine, and the functioning of the church. After all, don’t you want to be relevant to the world as it exists today?

Many Protestant churches would reject the label of “evangelical” on doctrinal grounds. The mainstream protestant churches are often associated with theological liberalism, and they insist that culture must define the church. In appealing to culture, these churches aren’t so much thinking about architecture, programming, or music. They’re thinking more in terms of worldview, ideology, and politics. Simply put, those who embrace theological liberalism often argue that the church has to change to keep up with the times. If we want to be relevant in the decades to come, we have to get with the times and ditch our antiquated doctrines. In effect, these voices want to allow the dominant voices in the academy, in entertainment, in science, in the LGBTQ+ movement, and in politics shape the beliefs, structure, and operation of the church. Those who think this way are proud to be part of evolving churches that look and think just like the secular world of the west.

Third, the past. The most nostalgic people in church life typically argue that the past ought to define the church. That is, we should allow the accumulated wisdom and traditions of the past to guide the appearance, the doctrine, and the functioning of the church. After all, don’t you just want church like it used to be?

There is a third group to recognize in this debate about who gets to define the church. This third group appeals to tradition. These are high church voices – Catholics, Anglicans, and Orthodox. In thinking through the definition of the church, how a church is structured, and how a church functions, the dominant voices of this movement appeal to the past and the wisdom of previous generations. Those who think tradition should be the dominant voice in shaping the church find great comfort in rituals and liturgy that dates back centuries to previous eras of church history. Often, these people claim a lineage that goes all the way back to the earliest period of church history. It should be noted that there is a kitschy, Protestant version of the appeal to tradition. These are the old-timey Protestants who just want to experience the church of their youth – choirs, vestments, programs, Bible translations, hymnals, rituals – these people just want church to be like it was in the golden age of their youth.

Fourth, the Bible. Those who recognize the inspiration, inerrancy, sufficiency, and authority of the Bible aim to allow the Word of God to define the church. That is, we should allow the Word of God to shape and appearance, the doctrine, and functioning of the church. After all, God has spoken, hasn’t he?

So, the question is, who defines the church? Will it be the evangelicals and their appeal to relevance in the eyes of future generations? Will it be the liberals and their call to ditch outdated doctrine? Will it be the traditionalists and their longing for history and nostalgia? Or, will it be the Word of God?

Recently at Immanuel, we preached through the book of Titus. Paul’s letter to Titus is what New Testament scholars refer to as a “Pastoral Epistle.” Alongside 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus provides us with instructions that pastors need to know as they lead the church. Titus in particular reminds us that God wants his church to be “put into order” (Titus 1:5). In other words, God has not left us to dream up our own designs and desires for the church. Rather, God has clearly spoken to us about how the church ought to be established, what the church ought to believe, and how the church ought to function in the world.

Who gets to define the church? God does, and God has revealed his desire for his church in books like Titus. As we worked through Titus, we noted several aspects of a church “put into order.”

• Leadership (Titus 1:5-16). God has qualifications for the men who lead his church (elders, overseers, pastors). These qualifications do not include a charismatic personality, a high capacity for accomplishment, a commanding stage presence, or a vision for innovation. They do include character, the ability to teach, and a desire to shepherd the flock.
• Discipleship (Titus 2:1-10). God aims to see disciples formed by the church. This is the central command in the Great Commission, and the means of making disciples is spelled out in Titus 2 when Paul talks about the relationships between older men and younger men, older women and younger women. Multigenerational discipleship is essential in a church.
• Doctrine (Titus 2:11-14). The elders of a church are called to teach sound doctrine, and the teaching of sound doctrine ought to result in obedience among the people of God. Paul gets to the heart of his letter at the end of chapter two when he presents us with the actual content of sound doctrine: the gospel. The gospel must be what we teach and what we live.
• Good Works (Titus 3:1-15). When the elders of a church give themselves to teaching right doctrine, the gospel will produce a people who are “devoted” to “good works.” This is not legalism or Phariseeism or moralism. This is the fruit of lives who have been saved and changed by the gospel. Every aspect of our lives will bear evidence of a devotion to good works.
• Discipline (Titus 1:10-16, 3:9-11). A church that is put into order is a church that has right leadership teaching right doctrine resulting in right living. This kind of church will not turn a blind eye toward false teaching, unrepentant sin, or divisiveness. Rather, this kind of church will be serious about the process of church discipline.

Who gets to define the church? Some say future generations. Others say the spirit of our age. Still others say the traditions of the past. Those who desire to be part of a church put into biblical order will look to God’s Word for guidance about how we define the church.