In the October, 1969 edition of the Reader’s Digest, a Rev. Ernest Campbell had an article by the above title. It was interesting to note the things he spoke about. Various questions were put to him, which he duly answered. What mistakes do people usually make when they join a church? “They join too quickly and fail to know what a good church is.” Do you think a person should investigate several denominations? “Protestant churches are really quite similar. Differences get down to church organisation, the way baptism is administered etc. Some historical differences have paled considerably.” When choices have been narrowed to a few, what qualities in each should be examined more closely? “Discount the size and the convenience of the church building. Discount the location, for if we can drive to golf, or to a shopping centre, we could drive to church”. Are friendliness and compatibility important? “Not really. A church is not to be judged as a club is.” Is there a key factor that tells of its vitality? “What that church spends on itself and what it spends outside of itself”. Would you choose an established debt-free church or a new one starting from scratch? “The new church – there’s no one around to say ‘we didn’t do it that way 30 years ago’.” What qualities of a church should one beware of? “A church that is too heavenly-minded and no earthly good”. Is there an optimum size? “It is not necessarily true that large churches are formal and stuffy whilst small churches are friendly and informal.” What about church membership requirements? There should be at least four hours of discussion and instruction for membership.” Would you recommend a church that focuses on certain concerns to get its image? A church ought to be well-rounded, rather than posturing through image-building.”
The bottom line of this article was that the reader could walk away being led to the idea that there are hundreds of churches out there and that all have God’s approval, all are the Bride of Christ, and that personal preference is the sole criteria by which “one picks a church”. Nothing could be father from the truth. “Denomination” comes from the verb denominate, meaning to divide. To divide the body of Christ is not right (cf. 1 Cor. 1:10). If everybody spoke the same thing how can there be denominations? Division is caused when people add to or take away from the Bible.
Amongst all the nations of the earth, there was only one Israel, and she certainly wasn’t the biggest and best (Deut. 7:6-9). What Israel was to God then, the church is now (1 Pet. 2:9) – the people of God. Jesus only built and builds one church (Matt.16:18). The nation of Israel was actually twelve tribes, but they were to be one nation with one law. The church has many congregations but it is to be one church with one law of liberty. It is common for us to look at various congregations in the early church, select various aspects of them, put it all together and come up with the model church. Ephesians is full of descriptions about the model church. It is fine for us to have aspirations and dreams about what we would want the church to be like. It is right for us to do that in order for us to understand the pattern for the church. To us the idea of restoration is important because it is an acknowledgement of the problems of denominationalism. Some cynics upon hearing about the restoration concept ask, Which church are you going to restore – Corinth, Laodicea, Collossae….? It is true these churches were different but they were all taught to be the same! The letters we read were essentially written to correct errors and departures from the doctrine of Christ and so it is possible to find the pattern for the Lord’s church in the letters of the New testament. It is right for us to strive to conform to the New Testament pattern in matters of worship and doctrine, but that’s the easy part. It’s easy to identify the distinguishing marks of the New Testament church – just like we do when we come out of the shopping centre looking for our car: we look for make, model, colour, registration number etc. To drive off in the wrong car is theft! Identifying marks of the church are simple; eg. Began in Jerusalem in A.D.33; no head but Jesus Christ therefore no man or synod governing it; five aspects of worship – praying, preaching, Lord’s Supper, singing and giving each Sunday; male leadership; no clergy/laity system dividing the church into clergy and laity; entrance by a new birth through hearing, believing, repenting, confessing and being baptised into Christ for the remission of sins et.al.
This is all very well, but then there’s attitudes, behaviours, struggles, immaturity, weakness – in short, what we may call the human factor. That makes the church something different from the ideal church picture we can paint from selected passages. And, if the church is doing its business, new members are being added who naturally bring their own set of problems, behaviours, struggles, weaknesses and immaturity:- rather just like the problems that children bring to parents who are faced with the issues of raising the children they bring into the world. I suspect that many of the answers to the question “What is the church of God’s dreams?” are really in answer to the question “What is the church of my dreams?”, and, in fact, the two things can be very different. (eg. school would be great without the students, and the church would be alright were it not for the members) We must always remember there is a difference between the real and the ideal. The church was designed for real people – not ideal, perfect people. Perfect people wouldn’t need Christ or His church.
We’ve all heard people who’ve said, I married the girl of my dreams and we’re happy for them, but we wouldn’t want to marry that same girl! (and the commitment of marriage is a comparison the Bible makes of God and His people) So who does God want to be married to? Monogamy is the model used of Christ and the church, not polygamy…the ‘darlings’ of the crowd are not the Lord’s choice: cf. Abraham was chosen, then Isaac (not Ishmael or the sons of Keturah), then Jacob and not Esau and so on (f. Ps.78:67,68; 33:12; 1 Pet. 2:9). We read before in Deut. 7:6-8 God made a commitment and He didn’t change His mind! It was that nation whom He had chosen that fulfilled the task He had set to bring the Messiah into the world. God still works by the same rule of commitment today (Heb. 13:5).
Marriage works the same way: it’s built on commitment to the one we chose to marry. Comparisons are inevitable: Why can’t you be rich like Mrs. Jones’ husband – they eat out every night and go on overseas holidays every year? Why can’t you be like Mr. brown’s wife; she fetches his slippers and news paper and sets up the recliner when he comes home from work, makes sure he’s comfortable, gets him a cup of coffee and says “I’ll wake you for tea dear”? Comparisons are also inevitable in the marriage between God and His people – His bride. What nation is like your people? David asked in 2 Sam. 7:23. Jeremiah asked in 2:11, Has there been a nation that has forsaken her gods like you? God got fed-up and wanted to destroy them when they made the golden calf and had to be “reminded” by Moses of His commitment to His people. Was God kidding? No, to make a nation out of Moses would still be making a nation from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Despite their constant provocation God remained true (Ezek. 20:8,9, 13,14,21,22). Jesus asked, What do you more than others? , but there was not a hint of His giving up on His disciples.
We live in an age when it is fashionable to “give up and swap”. We change channels, change jobs, change neighbourhoods, change cars, change brands a lot more than our forbears ever did. We live in a “have it your way” world of endless options which includes the modern idea of changing churches. But God’s ways are not our ways. What if he had chosen a “new chosen race” every time the Israelites gave up on His purpose for them? There would be no history of God standing by His people. What if Jesus had given up on His disciples every time they didn’t understand Him? There would have been no purpose for their lives and no one to tell His story. He abides faithful (2 Tim. 2:13). If we can’t trust God who can we trust?
There is a wonderful picture of God’s unfailing love in Hosea. Hosea, the prophet, is asked to marry a woman, Gomer by name, who would bear him three children with name’s symbolising Israel’s sinful condition, and she would play the harlot. Hosea’s marital experience would be a parable for all to see, for his experience mirrored God’s existence with Israel. Israel had been God’s bride but had flirted with the world, giving her affection to Baal idols and being joined to foreign nations. Hosea takes Gomer back, indicating God’s love for Israel and His desire to pursue the love of the One He had covenanted Himself to (cf. Hos. 11:8).
God still has the same attitude toward His people today in the Christian age. Paul; started a congregation of the Lord’s church in the ancient city of Corinth. It was a rough, tough city. It was a trade city: north/south trade in Greece went through Corinth and east/west trade in the Mediterranean went through Corinth. It was a boom town. But, as has been observed, rapid growth in wealth creates a false culture. Morally, Corinth was regarded as inferior, even in paganism. A Corinthian in a play was always depicted as drunk. And the expression, “to live as do the Corinthians” was an euphemism for the vilest kind of life. This is reflected in 1 Cor. 6:9-11 and was partly responsible for J.B. Philips becoming a believer in the Bible.
Of all the congregations in the New Testament, the letter called 1st Corinthians stands out as the one that lists more problems in a congregation than any other. Somebody made the observation that’s how we know it is inspired, for no congregation would have suffered the public exposure unless it was true! It was a congregation riddled with factions, tolerating gross immorality, settling problems with law suits, lack of consideration for weaker brethren, abusing the Lord’s Supper, chaotic worship services – to name some.
Yet, look at 1 Cor. 1:2,3. Was this the model church? I’m tempted to say “no!”, but I really don’t know. I know they had a lot of problems that Jesus wanted them to sort out, a lot of weaknesses He wanted them to strengthen, and a lot of attitudes He wanted changed. But He still loved them. He wasn’t about to give up on them. I know a model congregation has to have a place for the weak because of 1 Thess. 5:14. It’s very easy for our ideas of the model congregation to be exclusively membered by the strong. But it is said of Christ in Scripture that He wouldn’t break a bruised reed, nor snuff out a spluttering lamp. Even to a congregation in Laodicea that had become so self-righteous and self- sufficient they had effectively shut Christ out of their life, Christ says “I stand at the door and knock; if any man hear my voice and open the door; I will come in to him, and sup with him and he with me”. What patience, what commitment. May we be so patient and committed to one another.