For Further Reading: Bruce, "The Person of Christ: Incarnation and Virgin Birth,"

See time, age.

While the English word "church" etymologi-cally signifies a building, called the house of God, no such sense is attached to ekklesia in the NT. In the four instances where oikos, "house," refers to the Church (1 Tim. 3:15; Heb. 3:2; 1 Pet. 2:5; 4:17) the usage is metaphorical, meaning the household or family of God.

According to the Gospels Jesus spoke directly of the church on only two occasions. In Matt. 18:15-17 Jesus says that if an offending brother refuses to get the offense straightened out on a one-to-one basis, it should be taken to a small committee; but if he refuses to hear the small committee, the offended person should "tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer" (nasb). Jesus is clearly referring to a lo­cal body of believers who constitute the people of God, with internal disciplinary power. The disciples would understand Jesus to be saying that the corporate authority of the synagogue, with which they were familiar, was to inhere in the Christian church. The church therefore is more than a worshipping community; it is a gov­erning body. Christians are not to be a law to themselves, but to be subject to one another, and this not simply on a one-to-one basis but as one in relation to an organized, structured commu­nity. This power of the church to discipline is af­firmed also by Paul, in his specific applications of it (1 Cor. 5:1—6:5; et al.).

The other occasion occurred earlier, while Jesus and His disciples were in Caesarea Philippi: "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it" (Matt. 16:18, nasb). The play on words here between Petros, a stone, designating Peter, and petra, a large rock, bedrock, suggests that Jesus will build His Church on a foundation much more stable than Peter as a person, indeed on nothing less than the great truth of Peter's confession, "Thou

But other aspects of a biblical doctrine of the Church are here also. Jesus not only indicates that He is himself the Foundation of the Church, but that His resurrection will be the sufficient guarantee of its perpetuity and indestructibility. This is the probable meaning of "the gates of Hades [death] shall not overpower it." A. T. Rob­ertson says: "Christ's church will prevail and sur­vive because He will burst the gates of Hades and come forth conqueror" (Word Pictures, 1:133).

Obviously also Jesus is referring to the Church in its generic or universal sense, not simply as a local group. In this universal or general sense He portrays the Church as a building—"I will build my church." The foundation has already been declared. The materials will be the apostolate, their teaching, and those receiving the teaching as believers (Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:41-46; 1 Cor. 12:28; 15:1-9; Eph. 4:11-13; 2 Tim. 2:2; et al.). As a building its creation is a process—"I will build." And as a building it has walls—boundaries, defi­nitions, and limitations.

Both Paul and Peter pursue the metaphor of the Church as a building (1 Cor. 3:9-17; 1 Pet. 2:5-8).

While Jesus uses the term ekklesia only these two times (as found in the Gospels), He implies the Church in His use of poimne (or poimnion) a "flock" (Matt. 26:31; Luke 12:32; John 10:16; cf. Acts 20:28-29; 1 Pet. 5:2-3). Schmidt believes that the "flock" of 1 Cor. 9:7 "is rightly equated" with the ekklesia; and he sees a significant paral­lel between the "my sheep" of John 21:16 f and the "my church" of Matt. 16:18 (Kittel, 3:520). At any rate, this term casts the concept of the church in a more tender and intimate light, as the place not only of discipline but of personal care and security.

If direct references to the church are sparse in the Gospels, church consciousness dominates the Acts and the Epistles. The overwhelming em­phasis is on the church as a local body of disci­ples. This is shown by the frequent plural, "churches," and such expressions as "the church that is in their house" (1 Cor. 16:19) and "the church of God which is at Corinth" (2 Cor. 1:2). The church is never thought of as simply a nu­merical aggregate of isolated believers, but as of a close-knit community which meets for worship and shares common bonds of spiritual life, suf­fering, commitment, belief, and service. Each lo­cal group is the church in that place, coequal with all other churches.

It is primarily in Ephesians and Colossians that the concept of the Church as the mystical Body of Christ is unfolded. The "body-life" metaphor is already in Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12, used to illustrate the variety of functions in the work of God, and to inculcate a proper evalu­ation of gifts. In these earlier Epistles the Spirit's ministry in the Church is explained. But in the Ephesians and Colossians Christ himself is seen as the Head of the Church; His headship illu­minates the divine nature of the Church.

Christ is the Head in the sense of being the ground of the Church's very existence, the source of the Church's life, and the Ruler of the Church—"the church is subject unto Christ" (Eph. 5:24). The Church is also the object of Christ's atoning death: as the Father gave His Son for the world (John 3:16), so Christ gave himself for the Church, "that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water by the word" (v. 25, nasb).

Three brief words from Scripture shed light on the constitution of the church. Jesus said: "For where two or three have gathered together in My name, there I am in their midst" (Matt. 18:20, nasb). While this is not said in verbal reference to the church, its relevance can hardly be missed. The church could be defined, in simplest terms, as a gathering in the name of Christ with Christ in the midst. This does not imply, of course, that believers are the church only when together, and not the church when dispersed in their daily em­ployments (cf. Acts 8:1). But the primary impli­cation must not be missed—that any religious group not meeting from time to time in the name of Jesus, with Him in their midst, is not the church.

The second illuminating passage is Acts 2:47. After describing the unity, cohesion, and fellow­ship of the Early Church, Luke says: "And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved" (nasb). The Lord himself was gathering into the body those being saved. Salvation is personal, subjective, and highly individual; being in the church is cor­porate. Two things are to be noted: Only the "saved" can belong to the church, and their being brought into the church—their bonding—is the Lord's action. The relation of this to the sacra­ment of baptism cannot be discussed in this arti­cle.

The third text is 1 Cor. 12:13: "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we
were all made to drink of one Spirit" (nasb). The great divergence of opinion about this statement suggests the need for avoiding undue dogma­tism. However, it seems to this writer that this is saying exactly what the Acts passage said, with more precision. The Lord who adds to the Church is the Holy Spirit, who alone can baptize (or induct) into the Body as a spiritual organism. That this is a reference to water baptism is not at all certain, since the baptizing could be as spiri­tual and metaphorical as the drinking "of one Spirit." But even if the sacrament is intended, it is still true that apart from the Spirit's action, peo­ple are joiners but not members; members per­haps of an earthly organization but not of the true Church. The essential note here is that the Holy Spirit, in His sovereign presence and regen­erating power, constitutes in himself the life of the Church, without which it is but a wax mu­seum.

Traditionally theologians have ascribed to the church certain qualities or notes. The church may be said to be both visible and invisible; i.e., as an institution it is seen of men, yet only God knows in any congregation who is in the mys­tical Body of Christ through regeneration. Fur­ther, the church is local and universal; i.e., it is a definite group of believers meeting in one place, yet it also is the totality of all believers every­where in every generation. (The expression "holy catholic Church," as found in the Apostles' Creed, has no reference to the church of Rome, but to this universality.) Again, the church is characterized by both unity and diversity. Its uni­ty is in its "one body and one Spirit,... one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all" (Eph. 4:4-6, nasb). Every Christian has a mystical oneness with every other Christian (but a oneness which will only be experienced at its deepest level through sanctification—John 17:17-23). Notwithstanding this unity, great local differences have always been present.

The Church is also both holy and sinful. As the Body of Christ it is holy; as local groups of strug­gling Christians, many of whom are "yet carnal," it often betrays sinful weaknesses dishonoring to Christ (e.g., the Corinthian church). Christ is continuously in the process of sanctifying the Church (Eph. 5:27, nasb)—but that can only be done by sanctifying one person at a time.

The Church is also both impregnable and vul­nerable. While "the gates of Hades" cannot pre­vail against the Church, it can be contaminated and compromised from within—by sin, by false doctrine, by worldly alliances. Hence the deadly serious warning: "If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him" (1 Cor. 3:17, nasb), or, as A. T. Robertson puts it, "The church-wrecker God will wreck" (Word Pictures, 4:99; cf. Revelation 2—3).

It is the vulnerability of the church which led to the Protestant Reformation and the subse­quent rise of various denominations. Insofar as a denomination represents an honest attempt to emulate the NT Church in its purity, its existence should be viewed as a sign of vigor as much as a sign of illness. While an unfortunate necessity, such groupings are not essentially sinful. Sectar­ianism can be properly charged only when (1) there is significant doctrinal defection from his­toric orthodoxy, and/or (2) an exclusiveness which brands all others as unsaved, together with a refusal to cooperate or fellowship with others.

There are intricate questions concerning the relation of the church to Israel, to the Kingdom, to a possible Millennium, and to the world (in­cluding the state), which cannot be discussed here. There is also the thorny and perennial question of the church and Apostolic Succession. In addition the acute issue for some (especially where there is a state church) is whether the in­clusive concept of the church, with every bap­tized infant being registered as a member, is not a travesty on any authentic NT viewpoint. fFhe Church then is a divine institution, found­ed by Christ and composed of true believers. It is the community of redemption, constituting a new and unique race, united by the Spirit in the blood-ties of Calvary. Its internal function is to be a matrix of worship, nurture, fellowship, and service. Its external mission is to represent God in Christ to the whole world, through holiness of life and the proclamation of the gospel to every

The Church must be in the world but not of it. Ethically it should constitute a community apart, yet socially a community involved and con­cerned.

The distinction between the Church Universal and the churches severally could hardly be artic­ulated better than in the following sentences: "The Church of God is composed of all spiritu­ally regenerate persons, whose names are writ­ten in heaven. The churches severally are to be composed of such regenerate persons as by prov­idential permission, and by the leadings of the Holy Spirit, become associated together for holy fellowship and ministries" (Manual, Church of the Nazarene).
CHURCH COUNCILS—CHURCH GOVERNMENT

115


See sacraments, church government, church growth, great commission, canon law, body of christ, denomination.

For Further Reading: GMS, 560-611; Wiley, CT,
3:103-42; Kuen, / Will Build My Church; Allis, Prophecy
and the Church; Bright, The Kingdom of God, 215-74;
Kittel, 3:501-36; Robertson, Word Pictures in the NT,
1:130-34. Richard S. Taylor

CHURCH COUNCILS. Great doctrinal contro­versies developed early in the church, giving rise to ecumenical (general) councils called to settle those controversies. The Council of Nicea (a.d. 325) affirmed that the Son had always existed and is of the same essence as the Father. The Council of Constantinople (a.d. 381) reaffirmed the Nicene Creed. At Toledo (a.d. 589) filioque ("and the Son") was added to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, declaring that the Holy Spirit pro­ceeds from the Father "and the Son." The Council of Ephesus (a.d. 431) condemned Nestorianism, which denied the true humanity of Jesus Christ. The Council of Chalcedon (a.d. 451) affirmed the twofold nature of Christ, human and divine. Ecumenical councils held in a.d. 553 and 680 concluded that Jesus possessed both a human and a divine will. In the Second Nicean Council (a.d. 787) iconoclasts (image breakers) were con­demned.

In the Reformation Period the Western church subdivided into Roman Catholics and Protes­tants. The latter, hoping to reform the church, had rejected tradition and refused to place the authority of the church above that of the Scrip­tures. Justification by faith and the priesthood of every believer were made central doctrines. The "confessions" which various Protestant groups formulated were creedal in nature.

The Roman Catholic church drew up pro­nouncements against Reformation theology (in the Council of Trent, a.d. 1545-63). Later it de­clared the Immaculate Conception of Mary (a.d. 1854) and Papal Infallibility (a.d. 1870). More re­cently (a.d. 1950) the Assumption of Mary (her physical resurrection and ascension to heaven) was affirmed. In the Second Vatican Council (a.d. 1962-65), Roman Catholicism took mea­sures to heal some of the rift between herself and other Christians.

See creed (creeds), historical theology, chris­tology hypostatic union.

W. Ralph Thompson

Christ did not organize the Church in the sense of practical, minute details. Instead, He brought into existence a new spiritual commu­nity which He commissioned to carry on in His absence. The true Church "was not organized, but born (Heb. 12:23), that is, the new birth is the first condition in the founding of this Church. The second is the baptism of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13)" (Henry Clarence Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, 414). Thus the Church is an institution of the redeemed, a blessed society, en­gaging in certain practices and believing certain doctrines.

Organization and government are necessary, however. Believers must organize in local bodies in order to engage in physical achievements, so­cial accomplishments, and spiritual advance. The Church must have system and structure if it is to fulfill the Great Commission efficiently.

In seeking biblical guidelines, leadership should avoid two errors. One is the claim that even matters of detail are legislated, and that therefore no rule, however insignificant, should be adopted unless it is clearly taught in the NT. Others are of the opinion that no system of church government has been prescribed in Scrip­ture, and the Church is given complete freedom. The proper position is found between these two extremes.

Church government in the NT pertains pri­marily to local congregations, under the general supervision of the apostles. An example of the decision-making process, in the larger body, is seen in the Jerusalem conference (Acts 15; cf. 6:1-6).

Other God-ordained leaders were prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (Eph. 4:11). What ecclesiastical powers or governmental re­sponsibilities these persons had is not clear. In the discussion of gifts (1 Corinthians 12) and functions (Rom. 12:4-8) the implication is strong that organization should be designed to imple­ment these basic body principles.

As the Church expanded, a rather standard­ized ecclesiastical structure took shape. Elders were ordained in every congregation (Acts



14:23); and subordinate to them, in charge of be­nevolence, was the diaconate. Our best source of information concerning duties and qualifications of both groups are the letters to Timothy and Ti­tus. It would appear that the elders served as pastors and administrators; some more particu­larly were charged with teaching and preaching (1 Tim. 5:17). Titus and Timothy, judging by Paul's instructions to them, represented an inter­mediate authority, between the local body and the apostolate—similar to modern district super­intendents.

Organization was sufficient to safeguard doc­trinal standards (Acts 2:42; Eph. 2:20; 2 Tim. 2:2); devotional practices (Acts 4:32-37; 1 Cor. 14:26-38); practical duties (Acts 6:3; 1 Cor. 6:1-6); disci­pline of members (Acts 18:17; Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 5:9 ff); and day of meeting (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2). In these passages we have indications of planned and orderly procedure.

See church, worship.

For Further Reading: ISBE, 1:653; Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, 403-21; ZPEB, 1:857-62.

O. D. LOVELL

Though there are earlier studies of church growth, modern church growth theory dates from 1955 when Donald A. McGavran pub­lished The Bridges of God and initiated the struc­tural framework which characterizes the church growth movement. His definitive statement is found in the 1980 revision of Understanding Church Growth, which has an extensive bibli­ography. Though general church growth theory grew out of Third World mission research, it has now been contextualized for American church growth (by such as C. Peter Wagner) and applied to such issues as church planting and the com­munication of the gospel.

(5) Evangelism flows through the internal communication networks of societies and sub­cultures but crosses linguistic or cultural borders with difficulty. People most easily become Chris­tians among people like themselves. This is the homogeneous unit principle. (6) However, faith­fulness to the mission of God to reach all people can permit no selective evangelism or segre­gation of God's people. It requires that means be discovered and multiplied which will facilitate the cross-cultural communication of the gospel and the planting of churches in every segment of every society. (7) Another of McGavran's most important contributions is the concept of recep­tivity. At any given time, one group or individual may be responsive to the gospel, while another group or individual may be resistant. The church's responsibility to the resistant is to create readiness for receiving the gospel, while its re­sponsibility to the responsive is to maximize the opportunity for harvesting through adequate evangelism.