The Spirituality of the Church

Dear Church Family,

One of the topics that we discussed in the adult Sunday school class this past Sunday was a doctrine known as “the spirituality of the church.” In a short and accessible article, “Two Cheers for the Spirituality of the Church,” Kevin DeYoung offers this succinct definition:

“In general terms, the spirituality of the church teaches that given the nature of the church under the mediatorial reign of Christ there are limits to church power and that this power must not be confused with the power of the state.”

Later in the same article, DeYoung offers another helpful summary: “This is the spirituality of the church in a nutshell: Church power is ministerial and declarative not civil and coercive, the church cannot bind the conscience except as the Word of God binds the conscience, and the church can only make decisions and pronouncements founded expressly upon the Scriptures.”

For a bit more of a curmudgeonly (and I use the term affectionately) description and historical analysis of the doctrine of the spirituality of the church, I recommend T. David Gordon’s essay, “The Decline of Christianity in the West? A Contrarian View.” Gordon’s essay helpfully articulates a response to the arguments that many present-day Christians make in which they advocate the establishment of a Christian state or a Christian culture – or, at least, a call for Christians and the church to take captive the state or culture. In fact, one of Gordon’s main arguments is that the rise of Constantinianism (the idea that the church and state ought to be unified) as well as the rise of a Christian culture religion is actually detrimental to true Christianity and the health of the church.

Here's how Gordon puts it near the beginning of his essay:

“What I would like to suggest in this brief essay is that there is a difference, indeed a profound difference, between the decline of Christianity itself and the decline of culture religion; and further, that it is quite possible, if not altogether likely, that the decline of culture religion will ordinarily correlate with the progress of Christianity, not its regress.”

A little bit later, he takes up this thought again:

“What many historians would therefore describe as ‘the rise of Christianity’ I would describe as its decline. ‘Constantinianism’ is the term that many of us, following people such as Jacques Ellul, use to describe the promotion of Christianity through the powers of the state. While the medieval era witnessed the rise of Constantinianism and Christendom, one may fairly challenge the notion that the medieval era witnessed the rise of Christianity, and indeed may with good reason describe this as Christianity's decline, not its rise. If this is right, then what many decry as the ‘decline of Christianity’ is merely the decline of Constantinianism, which is perhaps the best thing that could ever happen to authentic Christianity. Indeed, if there is any real evidence of the decline of Christianity in the West, the evidence resides precisely in the eagerness of so many professing Christians to employ the state to advance the Christian religion.”

In the essay, Gordon goes on to describe how the doctrine of the spirituality of the church developed among American Presbyterians, beginning in the early 1700s. He concludes the essay by highlighting the dangers for the contemporary church (particularly in America) of disregarding this doctrine to its own detriment. In the final analysis, Gordon concludes:

“My greatest fear is not the decline of culture religion, since the presence or absence of such culture religion strikes me as having almost nothing to do with the vitality of true Christian faith and practice anyway. My fear is that those who fear the decline will resort to employing the coercive power of the state to rescue and/or preserve culture religion; a resort that will, in my estimation, damage the evangelistic cause of true Christianity profoundly.”

But what about the Bible?

The two essays linked above provide some insight into the historical development of the doctrine known as the spirituality of the church, but where do find this idea that the church ought not to focus on the ministry of the Word and not intermeddle with the affairs of the state. We discussed some of the biblical basis for this doctrine in Sunday school, but for now, let me recommend a third and final article that may help.

The entire article by Robert Rothwell, “The Spirituality of the Church,” is a helpful, practical, and easily accessible overview of the doctrine. It also provides a succinct summary of its biblical foundation:

“We have already mentioned one biblical foundation for the spirituality of the church, the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18–20. Another key text is Romans 13:1–7, where Paul says that God gives the sword to the state, not the church, to punish evildoers and reward those who do good. We also have the example of the Apostles, who do not direct the church to make laws for the secular society, as well as the calls and examples of people such as Daniel and Jeremiah who demonstrate that we must obey the secular state and be concerned for its well-being unless and until it compels us to do something God forbids or forbids us from doing what God commands (Jeremiah 29:4–7; Daniel 1).”

Conclusion

Our introductory lesson on “Church Membership 101” in the adult Sunday school class has led to some interesting and, in my estimation, fruitful discussion on a range of different topics that are relevant to our individual lives as Christians as well as our corporate life as a church. I hope you will join us on Sunday mornings at 9:30 am!

The Lord be with you! 

Pastor Peter M. Dietsch