Lately I have seen a number of posts and articles dealing with the function of the church in society. I have interacted with some of them while still attempting to work out what I believe is the biblical approach to social interaction. I am still working on it.
O. Palmer Robertson, missionary and Director of the African Bible College in Uganda and former professor at Covenant Theological Seminary, has written on the subject. I find his article helpful to the discussion and resonate with his approach. Here are a couple of excerpts with the PDFs attached.
While various efforts have been made to define the church, a simple and safe method may be to define the church in terms of its relationship to the Trinitarian God. The church is: the elect of the Father; the redeemed of the Son; and the renewed of the Holy Spirit. Immediately it should become obvious that to speak of the church is to speak of a people. Identification of the church with a building may be proper in colloquial language, but it never will find substantiation in the theological framework of the New Testament.
The church consists of those who have been elected of God before the foundation of the world, those for whom Christ died, those renewed by the inner working of the Holy Spirit of God. They are new creatures in Christ, breathing of a vital life which comes from immediate relationship with God Himself. They exist in a fashion incomprehensible to those who are not the church. More particularly, they exist as a united body. They gather together to offer their worship to God. They build up one another in the faith. They offer testimony to the truth of God among themselves and to the world. Their specific domain of responsibility is that of the revelation of God embodied in the person of Jesus Christ and interpretation in Holy Scripture. Theirs is a particular task which no other organization in this world may perform. To them is given the treasure of the Gospel, and the task of spreading that treasure to the world. The church finds its concrete expression in congregations, sessions, presbyteries, and assemblies.
The basilea refers to a realm broader than simply a people. It refers to a rule or a reign, to a kingship or a domain. As in the case of the church, a triune definition of the kingdom may be of help.
God the Father sits enthroned over his eternal kingdom. From beginning to end He has reigned supremely and unchallenged. No force operating in this world ever has been free of the domain of God the Father. The kingdom of the Son may be called the Messianic king-dom. This kingdom refers more specifically to the rule which Christ himself was established since his coming to earth. This kingdom continues to grow in the midst of a wicked and perverse generation.
The church has as its peculiar responsibility the expounding of the revelation of God to the people of God. Its task is to gather in and to build up the saints of God. Contrary to much modern theory, situations are not the only things which change attitudes. Pure environmentalism cannot answer the complicated question of human motivation. In fact, the change of heart is the most essential way to change the attitude. According to Scripture, God has ordained the foolish-ness of preaching as the means of changing men. C.H. Dodd’s study of the apostolic preaching recorded in the book of Acts has much to say at this point. Those elements characteristic of first century proclamation must dictate to the modern church the content of its proclamation. Sadly today, the modern church assumes that the world knows the truths of the Christian gospel and so therefore does not bother to proclaim the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises, the super-natural intervention of God in human history by the birth of Jesus Christ, the historical death and resurrection of the savior for the sins of his people. Sadly, the call to significant repentance and faith is not being issued by the church.
Often, in this connection, the question is raised, what is evangelism? Generally the implication is left that evangelism by word is not adequate, and that evangelism by deed may prove to be more effective in the modern world. It is, as a matter of fact, quite interesting that those who are most concerned to see the church involved in the realm of social questions are those most interested in doing away with the officer of the diaconate that office designed specifically for a ministry of mercy.
Yes, the proclamation of the gospel by the church must be a proclamation by deed as well as by word. It should be noted, however, that this deed-proclamation as well as the word-proclamation must be carried forward in well-defined limits by the church. When the responsibilities of the members of the kingdom of God are considered, a much broader responsibility will be noted. But at this point it is of great value to become aware of the fact that the church must exercise self-inflicted limitations. In studying the office of deacon as presented in the New Testament, never does the diaconate appear as a social club aimed at rectifying the social ills of the world. Instead, its ministry is limited. Primarily, it functions to relieve the saints of God. When and if the diaconate ministers to the world-at-large, its ministry must be related directly to the proclamation of the gospel. But so far as the New Testament church is concerned, the diaconate confines its exercises to Christian brethren.
The relationship of the church to the kingdom of of God is a basically simple one. The church provides the impetus to the kingdom. The church supplies the guidelines for the permeation of the total structures of society by the members of Christ’s kingdom.
Kingdom-members then mobilize in their efforts to overcome every area of human life for Christ’s sake. Individually and in organizations, members of Christ’s kingdom develop theoretical foundations for action, and practical ways of implementing that action. The implications of the gospel for the totality of human life must be faced courageously and lived out sacrificially.
Read the rest of Part I as well as Part II to see these excerpts in context.
February 27, 2008 at 10:55 am
Very fascinating article. He raises some good questions, especially regarding the limits of the church’s role in social action with the diaconate. It does seem accurate to say that deacons were set apart in Scripture to serve the saints, ministering to the widows, orphans, needy, etc in the churches. But to the extent that the mission of God’s people is to draw unbelievers into their community, to show hospitality to strangers etc., it would seem their responsibility extends to people outside the church.
However this applies to the position of deacon, it is certainly the responsibility of the church (God’s people) to minister to their neighbors and work to transform their communities. The ministry of the word produces of ministry of deed.
February 27, 2008 at 11:01 am
I will fix the url. Thanks.
As to his point, what I believe him to be saying is that the responsibility for deed ministry, feeding the poor, etc., is the responsibility of all believers–as we fan out into society. But, it is not the responsibility of the church.
He says that would be a confusion of the proper role of the church.
February 27, 2008 at 11:04 am
Try part 2 now.
February 27, 2008 at 11:14 am
But then I’m confused. Because I thought he was saying that the church should be understood as the people, all believers. What I understood him to say is that deed ministry to “the world” is not the expressed responsibility of deacons, but it is the responsibility of all believers, i.e. the church in the world. But I may just be confused and need to go back and read it again.
February 27, 2008 at 11:33 am
Read both parts and I think you will see what I mean. Essentially I believe what he is saying, on a local level, is that Acme Presbyterian Church or On the Corner Baptist Church should do what no other can do–proclaim the Word and administer the sacraments. Build up the saints. But, they are not to organize efforts to feed the poor, clothe the naked, etc. And, deacons are primarily to adminster the needs of the saints within that assembly.
But, the individual members of those churches and other churches should be being salt and light by among other things, individually and even organizing to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc.
February 27, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Are you saying that word and not deed ministry should happen in the church building?
What about things like the winter shelter over at Grace and Peace, which is basically a homeless shelter in the basement of their church? (wintershelter.org)
In addition, I think we need to be careful not to equate “church” with a building, as Robertson says. Remember, the early church met mostly in homes, and when they met, they invited the homeless, poor, and needy to fellowship and eat and worship with them.
February 27, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Hi Les. We met recently at TOPC. You and your lovely wife were going home after first service and my wife and I were walking in the door with our daughter for second service. Your wife and my wife stopped to chat and that’s when I introduced myself. For further clarification, I’m also the Nathan who’s been hanging out with Matt and Leslie and others involved in QuarterLife.
I’m a big fan of O. Palmer Robertson and the rest of the “Old Guard” that were at Covenant in the 70’s and 80’s. Robert Reymond especially. I own and have read Robertson’s book Christ and the Covenants which I’ve been told is the definitive work on the subject. I do have a question however about this definition of the church from the article:
“The church consists of those who have been elected of God before the foundation of the world, those for whom Christ died, those renewed by the inner working of the Holy Spirit of God.”
Why do you think he left out the children of believers in this definition of the church? Could it be that he’s referring to the “invisible” verses the “visible” church?
February 27, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Wes, I am not talking about the building. I think what Robertson is saying is that the deed ministry is not the function of the ministry of the church–the word is the church’s ministry. In other words, as he says, the diaconate is primarily concerned with meeting the needs of the saints–not the community. The elders are given to the word ministry and the deacons are given to the deed ministry to the saints (largely).
Now, as the word is preached and the believers are built up in the faith, they leave the corporate gatherings (word) and scatter back out into society in work, school, etc. and perform acts of word and deed (evangelism and mercy).
Last, when the people of God gather to worship, certainly all kninds of people should be welcome and invited–poor/rich, oppressed/non-oppressed, sick/well, etc. We should not favor any segment of society. Let us remember that the rich are often poor in reality (spiritually). We need not forget those “poor.”
February 27, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Nathan, hello again. I do remember you and your family.
Yes, I love the “old guard” of CTS as well. We surely miss those men of the faith in the PCA. Our loss in many cases was the OPCs gain!
I think in this article he was not trying to be that specific about the make-up of the visible church. Surely children of believers are members, and Robertson has written so in other places.
Really I think he was trying to show that it is the individual members in work, school, neighborhoods who will give hands and feet to the gospel in word and deed, rather than organized efforts of the gathered assembly. So in this article perhaps he was contrasting using “able-bodied” individuals and so did not feel the need to mention the babies. But I am really guessing why he did not mention them.
Thanks for your input. Keep on jumping in.
February 27, 2008 at 3:17 pm
“…evangelism by word is not adequate, and that evangelism by deed may prove to be more effective in the modern world.” para. 6
I’ve heard this assertion a lot and it seems to be connected with the anti-intellectualism which is so pervasive in the church today; even in some Reformed circles. The only way evangelism by word is no longer adequate/effective is if the Holy Spirit has stopped operating in men’s hearts. So why the lack of confidence in the third person of the trinity’s ability to regenerate the heart through the proclaimed word? I don’t get it. Wasn’t Paul’s main charge to Timothy to “preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:1.2)?
Could it be that many professors really are ashamed of the propositional content of the gospel? When Paul affirms his confidence in the gospel as “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16), wasn’t he talking about a spoken message? The previous verse would seem to indicate as much when tells the Romans how eager he was “to preach the gospel” to them, rather than just live out a sanctified imitation of Christ among them.
Paul shows us the necessary chain of events leading to saving faith in Rom. 1:13-15. Notice that he leaves no room for the option of “living” the gospel apart from proclaiming it.
“For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved’. How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!’”
February 27, 2008 at 3:32 pm
I did appreciate your answer to my previous question, Les. After looking at it again, I agree that in the context of the article’s topic he didn’t need to include children of believers. Good call. Just something I noticed.