By Molly T. Marshall
Making my way up I-35 from Fort Worth to Kansas City after the CBF gathering, I saw the following sign: “Going to hell? Ask Jesus into your heart. Be Saved. Contact a Christian-based church.”
Any of these phrases could invite extended theological reflection, at least during a long drive, but it was the “Christian-based church” line that arrested my attention. What other kind is there?
Defining what constitutes church has been a challenge since early Christianity burst onto the scene during the Roman Empire. One cynic wrote: “Jesus came preaching the kingdom, and what arrived was the church.”
Much has been made of the relationship of the kingdom or reign of God to the church. Augustine went so far as to identify the two. A more tempered perspective is that the church points beyond itself, bearing witness to the kingdom.
The church now can only be understood as it was understood originally – as Hans Kung put it, in light of the gospel. The etymology of the word “church” derives from the Greek word for Lord. Hence church technically means “related to the Lord.”
Matthew’s Gospel renders a vision of Jesus as the architect and builder of the church: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” (16:18). Only one other passage in the Gospels even mentions the word ekklesia, Matthew 18:17.
The scarcity of Gospel references to the church does not gainsay its importance, however. Jesus’ preaching and teaching laid the foundation for a post-resurrection church. The rest of the New Testament assumes that he authorized its emergence.
Apostolic images for the church are multiple. Prominent among them are People of God, Body of Christ, Communion of Saints and Work of the Spirit. Early Baptists loved the term “the gathered community,” a reference to the importance of worship and service together.
The Nicene Creed offered the first doctrinal framework for the church. The four classic marks were “one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” To this list, feminist theologian Letty Russell has added “justice.” Although implied by the earlier terms, she wanted to emphasize that the church cannot be faithful without doing justice.
This is a time of precipitous challenge for the church. The predictions are dire. Church attendance is in decline. The number of students enrolling in the master-of-divinity degree, the usual pathway to the pastorate, is waning. Most congregations have an aging demographic. The only increase is in the percentage of unaffiliated persons, the so-called “nones.”
The other part of the sign that troubled me is the idea that the individual can discern whether he or she is going to hell in isolation; one can find Jesus and be saved without the midwifery of the people of God.
It suggests that a person needs the church only after all those other things have already occurred. At the risk of being too linear in my reading of a billboard message, the point, as John Wesley observed, is “no one can be a Christian alone.”
There is good news, however. The cultural disestablishment of the church could actually bode well for authentic ecclesial identity.
In a day when dislocated people are longing for community, the church can offer a home where they can be one with the Body of Christ.
For those who feel they can never measure up to a tyranny of exaggerated expectations, the church mediates grace and thereby makes sinful people holy.
For persons longing for expressions of faith that move beyond narrow confines of judgment, a church can be catholic in generous orthodoxy.
And for those who know they need the deep waters of the long stream of Christian teaching, the church can be faithfully apostolic proclaiming and living the gospel.
In these practices, a church can rightly claim to be “related to the Lord,” and therefore the right kind of church.