« American Religiosity and You | Main | The Phil Vischer Podcast: Ep 40- Atheist Church, Tim Tebow, & The Boy Scouts »
February 22, 2013
Overcoming Four Church Myths
Don’t be fooled by these common—and dangerous—misconceptions.
When people encounter new things, their first tendency is to fit them into existing categories. If truth be told, most of us shy away from strange and unusual things that don’t fit our expectations. It reminds me of a Northerner who ate his first tamale by peeling down the husk and eating it like a banana. I saw another try to actually eat the corn husk with a knife and fork! If we don’t know better, we’ll draw wrong conclusions about the true nature of things based on personal experiences or cultural norms.

Myth 1: The church is merely a human organization
Though comprised of humans, the church itself is not merely a human organization. Jesus Christ is the head of the church, and the church is mystically his spiritual and physical body on earth (Eph. 1:22–23; 5:23; Col. 1:18). While we may distinguish the spiritual and physical aspects of the church, we must never separate them. Too often evangelicals have divorced the spiritual, heavenly, invisible, and eternal church from its physical, earthly, visible, historical manifestation. The result has been to treat local, visible churches as merely human organizations rather than as unique conduits through which God works his heavenly, spiritual purposes in history. Such dichotomizing has allowed Christians to treat their churches as they treat other human organizations—like a political party or a club.
In the world’s political realm, if we don’t like what our party stands for or if we lose confidence in its candidates, we just run against them, vote them out, or change the platform. If things get too bad, we can join another party or start our own. But in 1 Corinthians 3:3–4, Paul reprimands the church for taking sides and forming parties.
Neither should we treat the church like a club, with members who direct the organization according to the will of the majority. These Latin words are engraved in the Minnesota state capitol building: VOX POPULI, VOX DEI—“The Voice of the People Is the Voice of God.” Many Christians act like the church should be run by majority rule. However, after Israel demanded a king “like all the nations” to rule over them (1 Sam. 8:20), God told his prophet Samuel, “Obey their voice and make them a king” (8:22). By listening to the voice of the people, Israel ended up with just what they asked for: a king like the nations’ rather than a king of God’s own choosing. In the case of King Saul, the voice of the people was not the voice of God.
There is something supernatural about the church. It’s made up of people who have otherwise nothing in common. It’s not united by political constitutions, common interest, or corporate bylaws. It’s united by the Spirit of God around the person and work of Jesus Christ pursuing a common mission in the world.
Myth 2: The church is a supermarket for spiritual groceries
In the world of supermarkets, we like options, variety, and freedom to choose. Sadly, we often treat the church as if it were just one of many supermarkets that provide us with spiritual groceries. Consequently, we’re living in a Christian culture that regards church shopping, hopping, and dropping as normal.
Our supermarket mentality and the plethora of differing churches make our modern situation both unique and dangerous. We never seem to find just the right church, and this dissatisfaction can lead to a never-ending church shopping spree. I once knew a seminary student who, after six months of living in Dallas, still hadn’t settled down at a local church. Each Sunday he would try out a different church, then move on to another the following Sunday. Eventually he began following a well-known Christian preacher who didn’t have a church at the time but guest-preached at a different church each Sunday. So, like a groupie following a rock band, this wandering sheep followed that celebrity preacher from church to church. This is an example of an indefinite church shopping spree turned into an extreme case of church hopping.
Church dropping disturbs me the most. This is the practice of quitting church altogether, staying home Sunday mornings to watch preachers on TV or to listen to worship services by radio or podcast. This believer tries to live the Christian life outside a living local, physical church community. We see this trend in the so-called “virtual church,” where phony relationships are forged in simulated online communities without real, physical, body and soul commitment.
Our relationship to a local church is like our relationship to a family. It’s a covenantal relationship designed for the purpose of building each other up and exhorting each other to love and good works. If we look at our commitment to the local church through the lens of covenant commitment, the picture isn’t pretty. The solution? Start treating the local church less like a shopping mall and more like a family, less like a convenience store and more like a covenant community.
Myth 3: The church is just a gathering of a few believers
Several years ago when some of my friends and I prayed over our food at a fast-food joint, two scraggly men approached from across the restaurant and introduced themselves as a church. They explained that after visiting all the churches in the area they decided that none of them was preaching the true gospel, so those two men got together and decided, “We’ll be our own church.” There they stood, like the Lone Ranger and Tonto, grinning triumphantly in the bright fluorescent light, obviously proud of their do-it-yourself church.
Today some Christians have dropped out of established churches in favor of “home churches” or “family churches.” While the concept of a church meeting in a home has biblical and historical precedence (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19), many times an organization that calls itself a “house church” today is not a church at all, but just a bunch of disgruntled believers who couldn’t (or wouldn’t) make it work in a real established community of Christians.
Let’s be clear. A Bible study is not a church. It’s a Bible study. Getting together in the home for prayer is not a church. It’s a prayer meeting. A herd of Christians with a guitar and tambourine is not a church. It’s a sing-along. A man or woman opening the Bible and preaching at a willing crowd is not a church. It’s an exercise of free speech. A gathering of saints for eating and gossiping (often misconstrued as “fellowship”) is not a church. It’s a party.
From a biblical, historical, and theological perspective, an authentic church must consist of certain marks and works. The essential marks of a local church include:
• Orthodoxy: the proclamation of the central truths of the Christian faith regarding God, the person and work of Christ, and salvation
• Order: the positions of biblically qualified and properly appointed leaders
• Ordinances: the practice of baptism as the rite of institution into the covenant community, and the Lord’s Supper as the rite of sustained fellowship.
Besides these three marks, three essential works of a church include:
• Evangelism: gathering others to God by the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ
• Edification: growing believers toward maturity in Christ through teaching and discipline in genuine community
• Exaltation: glorifying God through adoration and service.
These marks and works not only place a church firmly on the foundation of the New Testament, but they also connect every true local church historically to the first church of the apostles. All true churches are united in glorifying God through building out and building up the body of Christ worldwide. True local churches are part of something bigger than themselves.
Myth 4: The church is optional
Like me, you’ve probably heard the words “church is optional” said about (or by) a person who has confessed Christ but who has dropped out of the church scene. Individual stories vary. Some people were beat up by an abusive church. Others were forced into church by their parents and finally got out from under their thumb when they left home. Some slid into a sinful lifestyle, and church got too convicting. I don’t know many Christians who would neglect local church involvement to such an extreme, but most people I know place a much lower value on the local church than the Bible does.
Part of the problem is our mystical, individualistic view of the spiritual life. Many of us have been misled into thinking that our spiritual health depends entirely on a direct personal relationship with God—that the key to spiritual growth is a private quite time that somehow summons the Holy Spirit and flushes away our sins. While I don’t reject the importance of personal spiritual disciplines, they are only part of God’s plan for spiritual health and growth.
To grow in Christ, believers need each other. In fact, God gave us our individual spiritual gifts for the growth of the community (1 Cor. 12:7). As radical as this may sound to those participating in an individualistic, me-theistic cultural evangelicalism, we must reject the idea that balanced spiritual growth can occur outside of a covenant commitment to an authentic local church.
We should prayerfully consider each decision we make regarding our local churches—from membership and attendance to our level of involvement and decisions regarding departure. If we seek to honor him and demonstrate genuine love for our brothers and sisters in Christ, the Lord will guide us in wise, prudent, and godly decisions regarding our involvement in the local church.
Michael Svigel is assistant professor of theological studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. This is an excerpt from RetroChristianity: Reclaiming the Forgotten Faith (Crossway, 2012).
Comments
"We should prayerfully consider each decision we make regarding our local churches..."
I don't think Michael realizes that the believers he deprecates as "just a bunch of disgruntled believers who couldn’t (or wouldn’t) make it work in a real established community of Christians" are believers who have done exactly what he suggests in the excellent final paragraph.
There are many "disgruntled" believers still sitting in their pews or preaching their Bible lectures but are fearful of taking key steps of faith to live out the faith they know the Bible says about church - which is vastly different than the church dominated by pulpit and pew routines.
Posted By: Tim | February 25, 2013 5:31 PM
Why do the Lone Ranger the poster child for do-it-yourself Christianity? The Ranger was never alone. He HAD Tonto, for crying out loud! He also knew every sheriff in the American southwest by name, had a nephew who kept his silver mine (from whence those legendary bullets came), and counted many many Indians as friends. It's high time Christians found some other symbol for the pious particles that drift with neither accountability nor fellowship.
Posted By: Gary | February 25, 2013 7:27 PM
Are these bona fide issues or just axes to grind? And for what purpose? I have seen few studies and know few practitioners who see these as critical issues with the possible exception of number four.
Posted By: Bob | February 26, 2013 1:36 PM
Thanks Dr. Swigel. I think you have astutely identified many common myths among American Christians. We could probably identify a few more.
I'm about halfway through your book and just read the section excerpted in this post this morning. I became Eastern Orthodox almost six years ago now, so obviously I came to some different conclusions about where "the church" in her institutional manifestation is located than you did. I'm very glad, though, to see Evangelicals like yourself encouraging others to rediscover forgotten parts of our common heritage in church history and develop a greater depth of understanding of what has come before. I think your book is a great resource to that end.
(As an aside, I did notice an inaccuracy in an assertion you make on page 78 that the Eastern Orthodox Church, like the Roman Catholic Church, believes it "may contribute new doctrines. . . " to what has gone before. According to the EO Church, the entire apostolic doctrinal deposit was made before the death of the Apostles through the Holy Spirit's work leading them into "all truth" in fulfillment of Christ's promise to them. What has and may develop in the Eastern Orthodox Church are practices--how doctrine is applied in different cultural circumstances--and the articulation of doctrine where new words may be used to clarify and defend that same apostolic deposit of faith in the face of various heresies that crop up. An example would be the teaching that Jesus Christ was fully God, therefore "consubstantial" with the Father, as well as fully Man and also that the Holy Spirit is God, the third Person of the Trinity. This Trinitarian reality was fully revealed to the Apostles and is fully revealed in the apostolic faith the church received from them and is evident in the Scriptures. However the early Church Fathers, in response to various heresies asserting otherwise and offering competing interpretations of Scripture, made this more explicit and clear in the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Councils that produced the Nicene-Constantinoplian Creed. This Creed introduced no new teaching--it merely clarified what had been received in the face of challenges from heresies. All subsequent doctrinal "development" in the Eastern Orthodox Church is also of this same nature. In the EO Church, you will find no discontinuous, genuinely "new" doctrines, like Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and Papal Infallibility as is found in the post-Schism Roman Catholic Church.)
Posted By: Karen | February 27, 2013 3:48 PM
Bob,
Thanks for clarifying, and as a Roman Catholic, I'll jump in also and point out an innacuracy on your part. You say, "In the EO Church, you will find no discontinuous, genuinely "new" doctrines, like Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and Papal Infallibility as is found in the post-Schism Roman Catholic Church.)." What you call new doctrines in the RCC are not new at all. They are biblical. Some reading from Catholic apologists will clear this up. As you say, "the entire apostolic doctrinal deposit was made before the death of the Apostles." The Roman Catholic Church knows and understands this as well. Blessing.
Posted By: brian | March 1, 2013 6:35 AM
Thanks, Brian. (I'm Karen, not Bob--it's a bit confusing, but the commenters' names appear at the bottom of their comments.) I know that this is the Roman Catholic perspective. The Eastern Orthodox simply beg to differ on this and will offer ouir own Scriptural and historical evidence for our position. (For one example, see here: http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papaldogma.aspx).
I have obviously found the EO faith and case more compelling. I also suspect that Dr. Swigel, looking at Scripture through an Evangelical lens, would view much of what the EO articulate in the development of their theology and understanding of the apostolic deposit as "new" doctrines. And so I'm sure these questions not be resolved in this thread.
Kind regards,
Karen
Posted By: Karen | March 1, 2013 8:11 AM
Brian & Karen
So we observe an evangelical, a Catholic and an Eastern Orthodox demonstrating loyalty to their own corporate brand name driven lens.
Is it possible that this displays the reality that a brand name lens adds distortion and corruption to connecting with God in unity that He never designed to be implemented and is a work of the flesh rather than the Spirit?
Will you merely continue the battle of the brand names?
Posted By: Tim | March 1, 2013 10:24 PM
Tim, a Bahai person or New Ager might ask the same of you for choosing the "brand name" Christian or Christ follower or Bible believer or whatever label you choose to use identify your intent to follow Jesus Christ as exclusively Lord and God (as best you understand that). Does that mean your attempted fidelity to Jesus Christ, rather than Bahai or New Age inclusive spirituality, is a work of the flesh and not the leading of the Holy Spirit?
We've been around this block before. I'm learning better than to enter into debate with someone whose mind is made up, and I would have thought my intent not to battle would have been clear by my closing comment to Brian. I am interested in being faithful to what I understand is true and right, not in convincing everyone else that I am correct in so doing.
Kind regards.
Karen
Posted By: Karen | March 1, 2013 11:59 PM
Tim,
Would Jesus' church KNOW that it's his Church? Would it be 2000 years old? Would it have a traceable lineage of successors to the apostles? Would it claim to be the Church Jesus founded? So, although the Eastern and Roman rites aren't together as they ought be, they can answer affirmatively to these questions, and they can rest in knowing their sacraments are valid. This sacramental reality is the life of the Church. We don't see the Church as a brand, and Eastern and Roman rites aren't denominations. Remembering your math, a denominator is part of a fraction. These fractions splintered off from a whole. I can't speak for Karen, but i think she and I see the "Church" as a visible mystery of Christ's mystical body. Most protestants simply see it as the invisible connection between "true" Christians. She and i cannot see things in terms of brands, but the guy who leaves his congregation because he disagrees with his pastor on such-and-such and doesn't feel fed, and then who starts a church in his living room, can do so. Jesus left us ONE Church. If he came back tomorrow and asked where his Church is, where would you point?
Posted By: brian | March 2, 2013 8:00 AM
@ Brian
"Jesus left us ONE Church."
Jesus left us a true compass heading (himself - his love). The "church" are those following the Heading, not some local-physical group of people gathering in some building putting their faith in some propositional belief system for some future salvation.
"If he came back tomorrow and asked where his Church is, where would you point?"
I would point to all those people on the planet, religious and non-religious, who are actively pursuing a life focused on loving others, a life of giving, serving, building cultural bridges, fostering joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, empathy, goodness, and fidelity.
I would point to people who are deliberately and consciously growing in patience, who are trying to be less envious and boastful, who are abandoning pride (especially religious pride), who honor others lavishly, who do not seek after their own identity, who are learning how to not be easily angered, who keep no record of wrongs, who protect, trust, hope, and persevere in all these ways.
I would point to those people who have abandoned religious pretense for the sole purpose of loving others as they have been first loved, to those who have given up on the “tribe of the one true church” and become truly free in the unfailing hope of embodied, unconditional love.
I would point to those who recognize that all their religious knowledge will fail. To those who admit that all of their prophesies and holy utterances and every important religious trinket -- will fail. To those who are letting go of old, crumbling institutional religious systems and are courageously rebuilding a perennial, actionable love in Christ's image, and those brave souls achieving similar breakthroughs over other religious and political environments.
If there is a "true church" I would say it looks something like that.
Posted By: John L | March 11, 2013 1:55 PM
"...where two or three are gathered in my name...?"
Posted By: Kim Hughes | April 15, 2013 2:00 PM
Post a comment: