The other day, I responded to an article giving three reasons for why a small; group is not a church. One of the reasons I identified as a red herring was to do with whether or not a small group has the sacraments. Some people seem to have struggled a little with this argument and I think I know why, so I thought I’d spend a little bit more time on it.
Protestants have consistently argued that the marks of a true church are two-fold, that there should be the proclamation of God’s Word and there should be the sacraments (communion and baptism).. Sometimes a third is added which is considered an implication of the second, proper administration of the sacraments requires the exercise of church discipline. Therefore, toy can see why the argument is made that if you don’t have the sacraments, then you don’t have a church.
Now, I hope you can also see why, whatever our views about what the marks of the church are, the argument does not work in his context, or isn’t really relevant (hence a red herring). You see, first of all, a small group may be sharing communion. They may even host baptisms. If they are doing this, then of course, it is possible for someone to tell them to stop doing those things because they are not a church. However, all you have demonstrated at this point is my argument that the reason the small group isn’t a church is because no-one intends it to be. Equally though, it may well be that the argument should be “if you are sharing the sacraments” then you should be a church. Notice that a small group tends to have God’s Word taught and arguably can exercise a form of discipline too at this point. So, on the assumption that the marks of the church are The Word, Sacraments and Discipline, then there is nothing to prevent a small group being recognised as a church, if that is what is agreed. It however remain the case that what matters is the intent of those who commissioned, lead and participate in the group.
At this point, if you were from the IX Marks stable, I guess that you might argue that the person cannot then claim to be a member of the small group as their church and the larger church of which it is/was a part. However, note two things here. First, that the argument here concerning ecclesiology and polity is not based on Scripture but on a specific tradition and its presuppositions. The result is that if you are Presbyterian or Anglican then there is no reason why you cannot recognise the Wednesday Night Home Group as a church in the same way that St Stephens or 10th Presbyterian is. In effect, it becomes a micro-parish or you might argue that the main presbyterian congregation becomes the presbytery.
However, what we might also want to pause and think about the basis for the argument that you require sacraments and discipline for the small group to be a church, namely the marks of a true church. It is interesting to note that when earlier protestants began to set out the marks, the alighted purely on Word and Sacraments. Notice that there are a whole host of other things that the New Testament expects the local church to be doing including practical one -another care through things like the widows list and collections for the poor. Discipline does not make it into all lists but is explicitly required. There’s no mention in the marks of praise, thanksgiving, encouragement or exercise of spiritual gifts -yet surely these are as much New Testament marks as The Word and Sacraments.
Then consider that right up until now, there have been Christians who have held to these marks, reformed, evangelical protestants, including those required to sign up to them because they form part of the 39 Articles of the Church of England and yet are able to distinguish entities that do have them present from local churches. To give an obvious example, Anglican Theological Colleges including the most overtly reformed, Oak Hill, where I studied, all have weekly communion services, all have a lot of teaching of the Word, throughout the week and arguably have more power to discipline members of their communities than your average Anglican parish church. The only slight question is over whether or not they have all the sacraments. I presume though that technically a baptism would be possible in Oak Hill Chapel and there have been ni fewer actual baptisms there than in many a parish.
So, it is worth going back to the actual documents. A number of Confessions and declarations from the early reformation period set out the marks, including, as mentioned earlier, the Thirsty Nine Articles of the Church of England. Here’s the relevant section:
Of the Church. The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.”[1]
Now, sometimes people have picked up on the word “congregation” here in order to argue that the Church of England is “congregationalist.” I think that people like William Taylor of St Helen’s Bishopsgate were making the argument a few years back to justify both staying in the Church of England and not complying with its decisions.
However, the problem was recognised at the time, this isn’t what the Article is saying. Rather, it is simply describing what “the visible church of Christ” is. It is the whole of the visible church that is “the congregation of faithful men” (we might want to update that to a more gender neutral version such as “people” or “men and women”). The point being then that God’s Church is marked out by the pure word and properly administered sacraments. Indeed, we might sum that up as “the true church are all those who faithful submit in obedience to the Lordship of Jesus). The aim was therefore not to describe the way that any local congregation should order its meetings but to do two things. It was to show that the Church of England was (part of) the true “visible Church of Christ”. Note that secondly it was to help people begin to see why other soc called Churches might not be. It was intended as a critique and a rebuke of their preaching and their sacraments. In fact, the whole Protestant case is being summed up here, that this was a movement protesting the failure of the Roman Catholic Church to properly teach and obey God’s Word resulting in false sacraments.
Whether or not you agree with that Protestant critique, it is important to recognise that this was the case being made. We should use tools for their intended purpose. It’s purpose was to hold up a light to encourage evaluation. Members of the Church of England today might want to consider how their communion measures up against the 19th Article but it is also a good measure for any of us to be accountable to.
[1] Article 19 of the Church of England 39 Articles.
Faithroots 