Category: Church

It’s far from the only way, it’s not flawless and it’s only one part of God’s big picture. Nevertheless, I have great affection for the mode of church life in which I find myself leading and, of course, believe it to be faithful to the truth. At the time of writing I am head of Preaching and Research at Emmanuel in Brighton which is part of the Newfrontiers church movement. Each of the advantages I outline below could be expanded and, for each, converse disadvantages could be cited. I’m keen to explore those, but that’s for another day. For now, let me provide some headlines on what I like about our churchmanship, the special opportunities which present to us and the freedoms we enjoy. 

1. Free to obey Christ’s Commission

It is perhaps not coincidental that our first building was originally a mission hall (the one pictured above, in fact). The city mission movement of the C19th was set up somewhat in opposition to the established and, to an extent, dissenting denominational churches. This flowed out of the frustration that they were not heralding the message or doing the works of the Gospel. The church is called to ‘go into all the world’ (Mark 16:15, Matthew 28:19) and when power, position and other trappings of establishment come along to muddy the water, this primal commission can be relegated below the maintenance of structures (both literally and figuratively). This creates a great tension: if the Church is successful in its mission it can become the social as well as the religious establishment and its distinctive message can be subsumed and its orthodoxy compromised.

For us, being unencumbered by onerous superstructures, denominational ties, or subservience to the state are great aids to maintaining an ‘outward’ focus: Upholding an attitude of mission rather than maintenance and a conception of the church as a dynamic movement of Jesus’ Kingdom rather than a ‘hospital’ or social club. The church is formed of those who have been set apart for the worship of God and for the expansion of His Kingdom and the free church have the advantage of being clearly separated.

2. Free to Build the Church

Being free of a denominational structure (our churches are ‘locally-denominated’, receiving external input through relationship from those with recognised ‘Ephesians 4’ apostolic gifting), we are free to pursue the New Testament model of Elders and Deacons in local church leadership. This is done on the basis of what we see in the book of Acts, the instruction in the Epistles (particularly the Pastoral Epistles). We take the Scriptural qualifications of Elders and Deacons as the preeminent criteria for appointing individuals to office; academic or institutional qualification might be desirable but only in a strictly supplementary capacity.

We recognise the priesthood of all believers and therefore eschew offices such as ‘priest’ and ‘vicar’ as Christ is the only priest (Hebrews 4:14) and mediator (1 Timothy 2:5). In accord with the consistent teaching of the New Testament, we say all Christians are ‘saints’ or ‘holy ones’ by virtue of their union with Christ and do not need a clerical mediator representing the Church or Christ to them; believers constitute the Church and they are in union with Him.

Our ‘primitivist’ approach (viz. the endeavour to model ourselves on the Early Church) does not deny the intervening centuries of Church history. Rather it allows us to deal critically with subsequent developments in church tradition, appraising them afresh in light of recorded Scriptural practice and doctrine and adopting, adapting or rejecting them as appropriate. Whilst theologians and thinkers in other traditions can theorise about these things, they are often hamstrung by the structures within which they operate when it comes to practical implementation (e.g. Edward Schillebeeckx’s arguments for primitive reform in Roman Catholic ecclesiology which were doomed to remain theory).

3. Free from Earthly Powers

…That is to say, free from the sovereignty of earthly powers over the church. Of course, the Church exists in the world and therefore alongside many other institutions, but the Church straddles the temporal and the eternal in a unique way. So, whilst there should be Christians involved in the state as politicians, civil servants, police, the forces etc. the Church itself should not be in thrall to the state. The ontology of the church as an eternal organism manifesting in the temporal argues against it, but so do practical instances of the church subservient to the state such as the state-compromised Deutsche Christen and the swathes of German Protestants that voted Nazi in 1932 and 1933. Of course, one could point to the phenomenon of free Evangelical voter support for Trump in the USA in 2016, but that will be for my ‘self-rebuttal’ post! Suffice it to say that the contemporary United States experience another manifestation of the encroachment of the secular upon the sacred. Despite the prevalent pride in church / state separation in the USA, many pastors do not shrink from partisan politics and exhorting their flocks to vote for (and hope in), specific candidates in a way that would be rare if not unheard of in the UK (in spite of church / state union). The counsel of Psalm 146:3-4 seems apt: “Do not put your trust in princes, in mortals, in whom there is no help. When their breath departs, they return to the earth; on that very day their plans perish.” Clearly there are more than one ways for a church to be in the thrall of the external world, including voluntary servitude to powers other than their Lord. This internal amnesia about what a church is as part of the eternal body of Christ manifesting at a point in time, answerable to and controlled by the Head alone.

The free church, whilst not immune to the pitfalls of prioritising secular obedience over sacred obedience, is at least helped by being naturally institutionally alienated from immediate conversation with state power. The Christian politician Jonathan Bartley argues that this ‘advantage’ enjoyed by the free churches will increasingly become the case for all churches in the post-Christendom age. “In Christendom”, he writes, “churches could exert control over society, perhaps most notably by legal means backed by sanctions for law-breakers. In post-Christendom, they have to exercise influence by witnessing to their story and its implications.” (Bartley : 2006, 3) So a posture of humility and an orthodox witness is required of the church. Describing his own upbringing, the late Tony Benn gives a fascinating insight, “I was brought up on the Bible”, writes Benn, “by my mother who told me me about the age-old conflict between the kings who had power and the prophets who preached righteousness. She taught me to support the prophets against the kings.” (Benn : 2003, 226) I think this addresses half of the Church’s responsibility towards state power; the other half being encapsulated by the command of 1 Timothy 2:2 to pray for those in authority.

References

Bartley, Jonathan. Faith and politics after Christendom: the church as a movement for anarchy. Bletchley, Milton Keynes, Bucks, UK: Paternoster Press, 2006.

Benn, Tony. Free Radical: new Century Essays. London: Continuum, 2004.