Mark Driscoll contends that many believers, even pastors, cannot answer, “What is a Christian Church?” Even the Nicene Creed does not define the church. It simply states, “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.” From Acts 2, Driscoll finds eight characteristics which define the church.
1. The church is made up of regenerated believers in Jesus (Acts 2:38-41)
2. The church is organized under qualified and competent leadership (Acts 2:42;)
3. The church regularly gathers to hear God’s Word rightly preached and to respond in worshipful ways (Acts 2:47)
4. The church is where the biblical sacraments of baptism and Communion are performed regularly (no reference)
5. The church is unified by God the Holy Spirit (no reference)
6. The church is a holy people (no reference)
7. The church is a loving community that devotes itself to fellowship, or koinonia (Acts 20:7)
8. The church is an evangelical community where the gospel of Jesus is constantly made visible by its preaching, its witness of the members, and its Spirit-empowered life of love (Acts 2:47)
Next, Driscoll examines how Catholicism and Protestantism have defined the church differently. The Roman Catholic Church defines itself as the visible church which is synonymous with the invisible. Driscoll correctly observes that the Protestant reformation rightly rejected this view because “Jesus distinguished between wheat and weeds, and wolves and sheep in the church.”
I disagree, however, with Driscoll’s reformed definition of the invisible church: “The invisible church is the community of all Christians throughout history who have been or will be loved and saved by Jesus Christ, including the believing people of the Old Testament.” In my next post I will give my response.
The church the body of Christ and I believe it is without walls. Many people today define church as the building they attend worship or the place down the road with a steeple on it. That is what man has made church. But church is a group of believers as the body with Christ as its head. We need to get back to this and start living that Christ filled life.
This is a very well thought out post. Driscoll is very learned in his eight point he brought out of scripture. I would however not agree with your definition of the invisible church. the invisible church is defined as all regenerated believers from the day of Pentecost which is when the church was established. I’m not sure if that’s what you meant but it may be a dangerous accusation to include Old Testament saints. For to include Old Testament saints is to assume that the church was not build by Christ which he clearly states it is in Matt. 16. I would state it as a different type of regeneration which was not founded on Christ’s death, burial and resurrection, but rather by God’s promise of Redemption via Abrahamic or Davidic Covenants. Let me know if i am wrong in this please.
Justin…great point about how the idea of including Old Testament saints in the universal church is to say that Christ did not build the church. Clearly, the death of the “Lamb slain before the foundation of the world” provided the means for salvation for all people who would call, but these people are still not a part of the bride of Christ–the Church. They are of a different dispensation and cannot be included.
The church is a group of Christian believers with Christ as the head of the church. I don’t agree with the eight characteristics of the church according to Driscoll, especially since there are very few Biblical references. I believe the local church should have a set of characteristics however they should also have a Biblical foundation as to reference of the belief.
If you were able to talk with Old Testament believers they would not be able to tell you what the church is. It was a mystery.I believe the Apostle Paul made reference to the mystery of the Church
(Eph 5:32; Rom 11:25;Eph 3:3).
I may be off on this one, but the Old Testament believers believed on the Messiah who was to come. They were not baptized into the Body of Christ as those who believe in Jesus Christ today. Before they died, they were still awaiting the promises and Messiah to be fulfilled (Heb 11: 39).
In the New Testament Jesus made reference to Him building His church (Matt 16:18).
I’m not sure if I agree with Driscoll’s eight characteristics of the church or not. But they do sound very much like characteristics of the church today, whether they should be attributes of the church or not. Since some of the eight points have no reference to his thinking, we probably shouldn’t stick strictly to those eight.
The Church is the creation of Christ that is called the bride of Christ in the New Testament. It is seperate from the Old Testament and has its own future as described in John 14. This blending of the church and Israel is derived from the giving of the Holy Spirit as testified in Jeremiah 31 and in Ezekiel 36 (The New Covenant). In Ezekiel it also says that they will dwell in the land that their fathers gave them. If this is the full revelation of the New Covenant, then should I move to Israel? It is just as ridiculous to ask that question as it is to say that, since the Holy Spirit is given that all of the New Covenant should be fulfilled.
After not often agreeing with Driscoll on almost everything that he says, I find this post again poorly thought out. Driscoll’s eight points are interesting and in theory great ideas, but not all correct or functional. I believe that much of the book of Philippians helps to define the church and what is expected of it. The worst part of what Driscoll writes is that much of what he has stated has no particular reference listed. I spend most of my time wondering why we continue to discuss Driscoll.
Brett, we continue to discuss Driscoll because he has a voice that most evangelicals are listening to and he also provides a platform for us to discuss the issues of this class.
I agree with you on the “invisible church”, As far as the 8 points go, I would say that I agree, the church is indeed everything that was said in the 8 points. Point number 3 is a highlight, people do need to respond in worshipful ways to the preaching of God’s Word, by obeying it.
Firstly, it bothers me that several of Driscoll’s points are without reference. These points, although well-phrased, prove nothing to someone who would disagree. Although I’m not advocating chapter/verse for every issue in life, I think that when defining something from Scripture there should at least be some reference point for the principle. Also, I highly disagree with his inclusion of Old Testament saints in the definition of the Universal Church. The church did not come into existence until Acts 2, so clearly OT saints could not be members.
I do believe that most Christians today, when asked, could not give a definition of what the church is or is supposed to be. That is why for decades, “church people” have just been doing church and getting theirs. Not going and giving their life away to reach out and have an influence in the world for Christ. It is all about, “what can I get for myself today.” That is a completely wrong mentality and when we can realize that, I think we can be what the Church is supposed to be, ambassadors for Christ.
Great point. Its sad to see so many church self-focused. How can they make themselves better, or how can they get their numbers up. Its not about numbers, its about lives. Yes, the church is good to help, support, encourage, and love believers. But we are all called to get the gospel out to the world. It seems that this call has somehow been lost in some churches, and it is sad to see.
Driscoll does a good job of making points out about the church as we know it today. But his lack of scriptural references make it hard to back up. Nevertheless, it is good to see his reasons being simple, gospel oriented, people loving and serving centered. Churches today can so easily get lost in programs, lock-ins, and budgets that the gospel barely makes it way in there. We see in scripture how the church was set up and how it was designed to move, yet we have created hundreds of new ways to do “church”. It’s not about the programs, its not about how cool it looks, its not even how how much money you spend. Its about the Lords regenerated people giving Him glory and praise for His work. Somehow, that idea seems to have been lost.
When I was reading this portion of his book, I wondered to myself which theologians and preachers Driscoll was consulting who could not define the Church. Such preachers should spend less time preaching and more time reading their Bibles! The Church can be simply defined as the universal body of believers from the time of Christ who established it until the rapture when he returns for it to make it his bride.
Read the Word! I think that is key!
I wish I had more time to discuss this post. I believe that God is using Driscoll is great ways. But like any other evangelical leader, you can just follow them head over heels. Most everything in this post is pretty solid. I pray that God will use me in such a impactful way as He has used Driscoll.