Covenantal Churches versus Consumer Church
by Dan Ford, January 9, 2004
In looking across the wide landscape of American churches, one is struck with the variety of denominations and nondenominations, which appear to compete with one another for churchgoers. Some churches and a few denominations look as if they remain doctrinally sound and true to their essential biblical obligations. However, other congregations and denominations have become either doctrinally unfit or have turned to mass marketing and media promotion to aggressively corral nearly any wandering soul into their fold. Still other Christians have given up on “regular” church altogether and “joined” in the more recently phenomena of finding all they “need” in a church home is to literally stay at home and be individually fed by the Bible, books, or taped messages alone. Other individuals have for decades turned to religious radio broadcasts to find an adequate sense of wider Christian “belongingness,” and the latest craze is for the most isolated of all to consider their “needs” sufficiently met among various web sites, and a vague sense of “spiritual connectedness” achieved in so-called “Christian” chat rooms. Thus, the plague of unaccountable individual isolationism amid a sense of wider media membership is infecting the church. But, above all, the most aggressive form of consumer appeal can be seen in the carefully scripted, telemedia “church service.” Choreographed cameras sweep across carefully edited footage of a carefully devoted congregation as a carefully pulpited, carefully lit preacher speaks his inspiring oracles of caring devotion. One indeed “feels” that he or she is actually part of a caring congregation. But, like it has nearly everything else, the cultural phenomena of mass media has given an all new meaning to the idea of a “caring” church. For whom do media ministers care? They may care about preaching the Bible or those in their own congregation, but they cannot possibly interactively care for the lives of monitor members. They may offer them a web link or a phone line, but how is that meeting their own Bible’s mandate for real, committed, mutual accountability? It is simply not. Thus, the kind of church that succeeds “on air” is strictly a consumer service, usually driven by the most outwardly appealing personality who delivers the most inwardly appealing message to the widest possible audience. The result is that the popular notion of “church” at large is taking the shape of a conglomerate of media-infused, consumer-savvy, though haplessly detached individuals.
That is also the nature of many non-media churches as well which have subsequently been forced to compete for their own local consumers. They, too, must be impressive, projecting the most dynamic appeal that they can muster to “reach” as many actual (flesh and bone) attendees as possible. Churches are now, more than ever, competitively driven by preachers to “impact” attendees with an outwardly captivating message — and the internal character of “church life” has radically changed. You see, there was a time when churches were “led” and “fed” (not “driven” or “impacted”) by Christ’s servant “shepherds” who quite patiently ministered God’s Word and faithfully administered His ordinances among saints who were all expected to be mutually accountable, committed members of a local body. Words such as “shepherds and members” as well as “leading and feeding” are still being “used” in all modern churches to be sure, but with the “new speak” of modern ministry managers, their former meanings, too, have radically changed. It appears that the churches of America have come down with a sever case of historical amnesia. We have not only been severely struck with the limitless possibilities of our mesmerizing marketing potential, but we have been gradually deadened by the ever pounding cultural effects of rampant humanism (technically known as doctrinal liberalism) and good-ol’ rugged individualism (better known as libertarianism, or technically, as administrative liberalism). “Contemporary” Christians have formed ever more creative notions about the nature of inner faith along with the new outward glamour of “church life.” Just as the old idea of a church “service” must now be liberally invigorating to catch the eye of the typical American living amid the backdrop of an entertainment driven culture, the hearts and minds of the congregations themselves must be liberally tantalized with an ever more invigorating spin on the old doctrines of faith to suit a more appealing view of God. “Church life” (historically known as Christianity) has always been internally as well as external lived, but according to the new doctrinal ethos, faith itself must be presented as appealing to us “just as we are,” with God’s “job description” similarly redefined and relegated to our most immediate, personal satisfactions. God’s holy Text, the Scriptures themselves, have also been recently redefined as if now they are books of human potentiality to assist us with our very own “issues.” The focus of “church life” is clearly upon us, especially in the modern “worship service,” which is now gauged as either “good” or “not-so-good” depending (ironically) on the emotional response that we’ve received from our worship. We definitely see little need to look back at the “plain” (once known as “pure”) doctrine and lives of our Christian forebearers, and we take even less notice of scriptural passages that actually call for sacrificial commitment among others. According to “contemporary” thinking, we’ve evolved past the bygone days of Christianity (oops, I meant “church life”) which were full of “dull,” personally “uninspiring,” or even “slavish” obligations among others. We “experience” what we want and get all we “need” from a desktop, a tube, a speaker, or even the self-envigorating “live” worship service. Yes indeed, our Christianity has swung wildly with the pendulum of cultural progress, but we might pause just long enough to consider if we’ve lost our most savory Christ like character in the swing. We have certainly lost any notion of something once known as “church discipline,” and here we might recall Christ’s own words referring to His divine command to “build my church” (see Matthew 16:18}. To us, those words seem to have faded with age or at least “evolved” amid the progressive marketplace, for after all, we have now been carefully reprogrammed to be Christ’s very own religious consumers.
We might stop here (for just one further moment) to vaguely recall that according to several other Bible passages, we also have some sort of direct accountability to build Christ’s church His way (see Matthew 28:19-20; Ephesians 5:21, 29-30; Colossians 1:24; Revelation 1:17 to 3:22). That divine commission, too, has surely dulled with age, because the claim among new-model assemblies that “We are a Christian church,” seems to imply something far different than it did in either biblical or historic Christendom. The emphasis is now on the words “We are” much more than the words “Christian church.” Our identity is now a self-identity and “Christian” is merely our chosen value system — which is why the popular refrain of consumer churches today is “Christian values” instead of the timeless and indelible virtues of the Savior. More and more, our churches resemble a corporate merger between the original divine ordination and the best of human inventiveness — with the “values” of latter holding an ever increasing majority of shares. It’s granted that we’re amassing the most impressive assemblies of consumer seekers and wanderers, but we might also stop long enough to seek and wonder about the lack of character and fiber that once actual knit peoples’ lives together within an assembly. We can rest assured on Christ’s own promises that His church will continue to survive and thrive, however, we cannot rest assured that our churches will successfully continue in the humanistic shape or the doctrinally shallow mold that we attempt to press upon them. Christ has given His beloved future bride (His espoused, devoted church) a Great Commission that goes far beyond the task of baby-sitting the religious consumers of the world.
Modern American churches therefore face a cultural dilemma. On one hand, they are still required by God to keep doctrinal and moral corruption out of the congregation, but according to today’s mass marketing ethos, they also feel the need to maintain popular attendance. One way that some churches deal with the dilemma is to go the way of doctrinal liberalism, and with it, downplay or ignore the biblical standards of moral purity in their teaching. Many large denominations have chosen that route for some time, but by welcoming apostate leadership, they have undermined their overall fidelity to God as well as their specific integrity among each other. The idea of committed “membership” is indeed maintained in those churches — at the price of sacrificing genuine, orthodox Christianity. Another, more appealing approach often used by the more morally and doctrinally persistent fundamentalists is to do away with the idea of accountable church membership. With that approach the congregation is viewed as a resident clientele served by the church managers who preach, teach, or lead in some corporate capacity or are otherwise obligated to the “front office” by a contracted service. That approach epitomizes the new consumer marketing ethos, because the leadership of the church (still usually called the “eldership”) operates as if it was a corporate chairmanship, and the “ministry” serves as if it were an administrative plan to carry out marketing objectives. The rest of attendees (still usually called the “membership”) are styled as the consumers of the leadership’s carefully packaged product (still called the “service”). To some extent, the laity is called upon to help “get the message out,” but one’s personal savvy or charismatic ability to “stand out” over the others determines the degree of one’s growth amid the body, and not necessarily one’s sound doctrinal stance or his or her ability to “stand in” for the welfare of others. Lip service is thereby brought to its full light, and real “religion” (see James 1:27) is relegated to the background. The overall flock is indeed “served,” but not under a biblical shepherding model (see 1st Peter 5:2); it is instead serviced as if the people were a throng of attentive shoppers who buy (we Christians prefer to call it “support”) the larger corporate objective. Official “church talk” continues to sound very biblical as all the right words are purposely used in the “service,” but there can be no mistaking the hidden lingo implied in the methods of modern “discipleship.” We carefully pitch a most inoffensive message to the widest possible audience and our product is strictly a self enriching religion. The message has radically shifted away from that which is biblically mandated, rich in doctrinal integrity and fit for a Christlike (mutually sacrificial) body of saints (see 2 Corinthians 2:17). It has shifted (or rather, has been driven) toward what appeals to the greatest number of customers. At the same time, the new pitch tries not to stray too far from a few (ever less definitive) “essential” doctrines of the historic faith. But, forbid that it actually chew upon the challenging fiber of mutual self-sacrifice. Tasty, individualized servings of sweet motherly milk is what we buy (“support”), and sweet motherly milk is what we get (see 1 Corinthians 3:2-3).
The rapid-sell, rapid-buy consumer marketing culture that we live in today is largely responsible for the popularity of the “church growth” movement. The old biblical and historic ethos of godliness measured by quality has shifted to the new consumer marketing ethos of godliness measured in numbers. God’s own “anointing” is gauged by a church’s popularity (forget finding a biblical reference supporting that point), and rapid-growth is a church’s version of a “get rich quick” scheme. One key difference between the old and the new face of Christianity can be seen in the contrast between the (old) biblical mandate to be “members” of a mutually caring, committed body of Christ (see 1 Corinthians 12:24-25 and Ephesians 2:19-22), and the (new) notion that we simply “attend” a church. For example, a decidedly pointed marketing technique used by the “church growth” movement is to make an appeal to the wider community under the banner of a “family friendly” church. By this, the local church typically appeals to the most devoted member of a family (usually the wife/mother) who would like the other family members (typically hubby/kids) to at least “attend” church as a family. The pitch is to sell high expectations for a happy, healthier home. The “family friendly” tact does indeed mean that the church offers a place to park the common family car before the members enter the building and maybe a common seat in the pew together for part of its “service.” However, the family members are soon separated in order to actually participate any significant involvement with others, and that involvement represents something quite different for each of the family’s individuals. For part (if not all) of a service, young children are removed from their parents and groomed under a separate “ministry” designed to attend to their individual childish “needs;” teens are likewise removed to typically hear a more “contemporary” message specially groomed toward their individual “adolescent needs,” and the older saints hear a more “adult” message geared to help each of them deal with the individual pressures of “mature” living. The child, the teen, and the adult are thereby trained to “encounter” God according to their own, individualized “needs.” The appeal goes something like: “Give us your tired, disobedient, disjointed family members, and we’ll groom each as healthy, independent individuals more fit to cohabitate a happier home.” Is that family friendly? Is it teaching biblical Christianity? It may be very fine consumer marketing, but it’s far from exampling either family or church covenantal accountability. “Family friendly” churches are far too often selling individualism in the hopes that pacified singles can somehow come together as a family to have their own refined expectations of God and each other met. But, what home or church can be contented when the foundation is poured in individualism and it is structured on the notion that satisfying one’s “needs” is the key to any general success? Biblical success is the exact reverse (see Roman’s 12:1-5). Personal service to others is the superstructure of the successful home or church well planted upon a Christlike (self sacrificing) foundation. There can be little wonder why rampant transience often characterizes so many “family friendly” churches, because the biblical definition of “friendly” is not often one of their hallmarks. Let there be no mistaking the fact that individual solace with mutual accountability is certainly no evil. For example, each person is created individually and holds his or her first account directly with God, which is why baptism into the church itself is conducted on an individual basis. But, remember that accountability to our heavenly Lord is measured by Him in our selfless interrelations once we are under His commands in His church (see John 15:12-17). The sin of individualism soon finds its way into local churches when we attempt to keep up with a popular trend to mass-market ourselves to a fallen world. But, when the entire world is invited into the church with open arms, neither selflessness nor mutual accountability are virtues that often follow. Nevertheless, another very popular “church growth” technique is for the local church to sell itself as “nonjudgmental” or even friendly to those of any moral or doctrinal stripe in order to help them reorient their lives through regular attendance. Once again, the local church sells its “service” to disjointed individuals, although, through its careful attention to professional consumer counseling, the ministry hopes to gently groom the new churchgoers by assisting them with their personal “issues.” After all, “contemporary cultural sensibilities” mandate that (even as Christians) we do not confront one’s personal sense of “wholeness,” even though a biblical church is strictly defined by the unity of oneness in the overall congregation (see 1 Corinthians 12:12). That contradiction being so, we must simply be further reminded by our church’s marketing managers that the real issue behind our individual sense of “wholeness” is for each us to find our personal contentment within their programmed ministry (which supposedly stands in for the biblical idea of church unity). As long as church leaders wait for that miracle to happen, the character of the entire body suffers because no ministerial leadership is equipped carry such a load alone (see Ephesians 4:17). If, however, such a ministry of programmed self-actualization actually takes hold in the lives of attendees, some of them might become so bold as to recognize their own “personal opportunity” to “get involved” with the other saints. But, we might again consider whether such an “involved” individual would be fit to roam amongst the sheep, or rather if the elders might wonder, themselves, if they’ve actually invited wolves into the fold and then aptly groomed them to prey amongst the flock (see Acts: 20:28-30).
At least at a base level, modern churches do provide the apparent “best of two worlds:” First, the “heavenly” kingdom seems to be advanced (at least numerically) by getting large numbers sinners into the (apparent) eternal fold. And, those attendees have a “safe place” to go and to act a bit better on any given Sunday (if we ignore the endemic problems of fully adopted yet unreformed sinners freely roaming within the gates). But, hopefully, the sweets given them on Sundays will satisfy their appetite and maintain them in a fair demeanor throughout the remaining week. (By the way, doesn’t the Bible warn us that wolves don’t settle for doctrinal treats, but they devour the flock? — again, see Acts 20:28-31). At any rate, Second, and what seems most important today is the fact that the other realm, or man’s “earthly” kingdom, is very significantly advanced though abundant finances flowing in to maintain the administration’s wide-open door policy. Remember that nowadays popularity is next to godliness — and money is money regardless of who gives! So, if purity is not the focus of the ministry, many “blessed” sinners (wealthy wolves) are also sure to financially aid the ministry. Sin might abound, but greater grace abounds as well (look at Romans 6:1 — but don’t read the whole chapter!). Ah, the best of both worlds! Admittedly, the heavenly kingdom might be brought down to a baser, or more human grade than is called for in Scripture, but the kingdom of man is advanced unto heights that could not be achieved without humanizing old, biblical churches with the new definition of “abundant blessings” (but contrast Matthew 12:33-35 with 19:23-24, and Revelation 3:17 with 3:18). Even though such schemes were censured by the Savior as futile attempts to serve both God and “mammon” (Matthew 6:24), under the new banner of “church growth,” the practice cannot be questioned because (as every first-year marketing student knows): “Who can argue with numbers?” And, further, according to the more expert marketing managers, Christ, Himself, must have turned away far too many valuable religious marketeers by warning His followers that they should take up their own crosses (see Luke 9: 23-24). Ignoring that, the new sermonizers are quick to remind us that Christ had actually promised that the Christian yoke would be easy and our burden light. [Here again, we must ignore the fact that Christ was talking about His relieving the impossible burden of us carrying our own eternal guilt of sin by comparison to the temporal (often significant) yoke that He places upon Christians (compare Matthew 11:27-30 and Colossians 1:24)]. And, look at all the savvy new-model Christians who are told by the modern ministry managers that “you deserve a break today” (not a quote from Holy Scripture). By marketing just the right mix of a little of Christ’s kingdom with the kingdom of man, contemporary church attendance now resembles a type of handy Sam’s Club “membership” in which masses of churchgoers are offered a sense of entitlement to special goodies within the company warehouse, but by all means, they are also fully “validated” in perusing friendly isles elsewhere in order to find any better deal for themselves.
Amid such rampant Christian consumerism, pressure is applied to nearly every local church to keep its flock securely contented — and they do so by skillfully packaging their own marketing showcase. Aggressive growth objectives are not reserved for the bigger market players because smaller assemblies, too, must be seen by their own attendees as consistent with the methods of the more popular (“more anointed”) church managers. They, too, must put the best face on their local productions to maintain an adequate semblance of God’s favor. Thus, the timeless biblical virtue of patient ministerial service is drowned out by the marketing “value” of showcasing the newest popular “teaching” and riding the zenith of the latest spiritual “wave.” (contrast Ephesians 4:14-16). And, similar to the old cryptic ‘mystery plays’ of the late Middle Ages which were designed as public performances to keep the flock pacified with eye-popping costumes and shows, most modern “outreach ministries” also come in the form of stage-shows themselves, which are actually designed to entertain the faithful in their seats (or at least to keep them pacified within the fold). For example, some of the most impressive modern performances are designed to “minister” to the “contemporary youth” by enlivening their most vibrant and vulnerable senses — by flirting with a young girl’s strongest inner emotions, or perhaps, teasing out a young boy’s every fantasy of personal stardom — all going down with the sweetness of a smoothie, but in the end, simply captivating each child with the most delectable (but insatiable) appetite for the finest flavors of milk (contrast Hebrews 5:11-13). Again, competing ministries are pressed even further for more and more creative packaging to mask their newest unhealthy ingredients, but because we also live in a “youth culture” and a “mobile society,” if the flock can’t find its sweet sustenance within the fold, they’ll surly tickle their taste buds with the formula offered up or down the street — or worse, seek satisfaction “in the world!” — The world indeed.
In earlier days of Christendom there have been historic reforming movements designed to restore covenantal fidelity to local congregations. If we look back to the time of the English Reformation, there was a profound movement by “Reformed” biblical advocates (the Puritans) to go back to the original, apostolic model of accountable church membership. At that time, however, the Reformation was a reaction to a kind of formalized church membership that was forced upon the people of England to keep them bound under a centralized establishment. Under the formal Anglo-Romanish regime, people were intended to come to God — come to Christ — through the rigid administration of an impressive and innovative church structure. Clerics used the Church’s “magisterial” system as a license for many doctrinal inventions, for new modes of worship, and as a warrant for the clergy itself to sin. In hiding God’s great Covenant Books (the Holy Scriptures) from the people, the Church’s officials created an impressive but unwieldy ecclesiastical superstructure wherein they held absolute sway over the lives of all baptized members of a universal system. In one sense, that structural rigidity represent the pendulum’s swing away from today’s unstructured administrative liberalism — and both extremes are worthy of serious concern. But, in another way, that old order represents a mirror image of the corruption of our day in which contemporary churches, likewise, attempt to overwhelm people with extravagant, creative showmanship. “The Church” once had massive cathedrals with an unaccountable magisterium and inventive, though awe-inspiring, modes of “Holy Service.” We now have giant assemblies with unaccountable ministries and inventive, though awe-inspiring, modes of “worship” — but alas, equally corrupt. We, as Christians (and hopefully the forebearers of a powerful new generation of church reformers), must recall that the scriptural mandate remains for us to get it right — as it was rightly given by Christ and the Apostles, and as it was rightly restored to a great measure by the Puritans. Churches are again obliged to understand God’s covenantal heart as expressed in His Word, to comprehend Christ’s covenantal design for His Church, and then to be on guard against either extra-covenantal rigid structuralism on one hand and anti-covenantal licentious laxity on the other — and to resist all non-covenantal consumer driven showmanship altogether.
To lay the groundwork for the idea of a covenantal church, we should begin with the biblical reality that God views all of His relations with people (and certainly with His chosen people of both Testaments in particular) as covenantal relations without exception. When God created the first two humans on earth, He united them in a covenantal union with each other (see Genesis 2). Then, when God graciously recreated mankind through Noah’s family following the great deluge, He also described His relations with all of us as distinctly covenantal in nature (see Genesis 9). Then when God chose a people to be “His” people through Abraham, He established His relations with them exclusively through covenant promises (see Genesis 17). Then when God formed His Old Covenant nation of Israel after its redemption from Egypt, He made the terms of the Hebrew Commonwealth (in both church and state) to be explicitly covenantal in nature (see Exodus 19-20). And then, when God prophetically announced His future covenant (the new “House of Israel” or His covenant church), He described those new chosen people as established in a “New Covenant” (Jeremiah 31). Can we, then, begin to see the big picture that (from God’s side of the ledger) all mutually obliging human relations under Him are strictly accounted as committed covenantal relations?
God’s relations with His chosen people, and their relations with each other are always covenantal. That means that when He establishes a people (whether in a marriage or a church, etc.), God always establishes His authority over them as well as their bonds with one another as covenantally binding. Put another way, a binding covenant defines the only way that a perfectly precise, infallible, Holy God can engage Himself with a group of imperfect, fallible people. He must bind Himself by His own Words and promises because, as an perfect Being, He cannot be engaged except by a precisely defined contract to have any meaningful interaction with them. God, has indeed bound Himself by His own perfectly defined promises to His perfectly redeemed saints (although within themselves, they still remain imperfect). On God’s part, He “engages” His church through His perfect Covenant of Grace (fulfilled in Jesus Christ’s perfectly fulfilled sacrifice) which puts reciprocal covenantal obligations upon all those who are perfectly redeemed (see 1 Corinthians 11:23-26). Thus, He is the true sovereign Lord over His mutually bound, covenantal church (compare Galatians 3:15-16 and 3:26-29). And, the only way for the infallible God to legitimately engage the fallible people therein is for Him to see them through their own mutually obliging covenantal ties to Him in Christ — and unto each other under Christ’s sole Headship (see Ephesians 4:15-16). In His eyes we are covenantally bound with each other — that is how He relates to His church, and how His church relates within itself in any godly, interactive way. Thus we understand the mutually binding significance of all of those who are in His true church: We must view ourselves as covenantally espoused together as Jesus Christ’s singular, future bride (see Revelation 19:7-9) — and unto Him, be mutually engaged and accountable together in a pure and godly, unity of oneness (see John 17:20-22).
In the shape of Christ’s cross, itself, we can also see a visual representation of the church’s covenantal obligations: The vertical spire of the cross directs our attention from the earth (and the feet of man) toward the heavens (and the Headship of Christ), symbolizing the church’s vertical covenant with its heavenly Lord. The horizontal beam of the cross then spreads from Christ’s heart outward toward each of His hands, and His arms and hands symbolize the horizontal covenant that the church has among its members in Him. Admittedly, that analogy may be a bit of graphic conjecture, however, the Ten Commandments are not at all conjecture. It is well known that the first table of the Law, or the first four Commandments spell out the specific moral covenantal obligations that we all have to our Lord in Heaven (defining our vertical covenant with God); the second table of the Law, or the last six Commandments, spell out the moral covenantal obligations that we all have to each other (defining our horizontal covenant with each other). The point is this: that all things given by God have binding obligations annexed to them and are therefore covenantal in nature, for all things covenantal have a vertical as well as a horizontal shaft of obligation that binds us with God as well as with others under Him. The crux of every institution ordained by God has His covenantal essence at its heart. And, with the manifold mandates that Christ has placed upon His own universal body on earth, the church as a whole must certainly see itself as covenantal at its heart, or its vertical and horizontal crux means little at all.
As to the nature of the local churches, any understanding of a local “body” requires knowing the important distinctions between an individual church and the universal church. Although the true “universal church” is defined as the entire number of redeemed elect of all ages and therefore it has no geographic location, the visible manifestation of that universal church is seen in its wide number of distinct churches. The Bible neither gives a precise formula for how distinct churches pledge local “membership,” nor does it provide the jots and tittles of “covenanting.” Nevertheless, just like the great doctrine of the Holy Trinity never appears in the Bible by the name “Trinity,” neither does doctrine of a local covenant by members of a local body appear by name “covenant.” However, we can clearly see that the covenantal principles of binding and mutually accountable unity permeate the entire text and is inescapable in evaluating the essential character of any biblical body of believers (see 1 Corinthians 1:10, 2 Corinthians 13:11, Phillipians 2:1-2, Ephesians 4:2-4,16, etc.). Among numerous Apostolic Era examples of such binding, the Apostle Paul specifically addressed the local church at Colosse: “That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;” (Colossians 2:2). In fact, the full apostolic acknowledgement of distinct bodies implies a type of “knitting” between local members that would far exceed a practical or regular obligation toward all others of the universal church (see Colossians 3:12-17). Essentials such as local leadership, local authority, and local accountability, as well as regular care, regular worship, and regular discipline are clearly explicit in the New Covenant churches. Any appropriation of such covenantal essentials strongly indicates a regular, local setting for the covenantal unity of saints, or they have little practical meaning at all (reference Romans 12:7-16).
To evaluate the nature of a specific, or local, covenantal union we might first look at how God has presented such unions to us in His Holy Text. We might first note the fact that the biblical model of the “covenant family” is domestically lived out in everyday practice, meaning that each husband and wife are mutually accountable to God within their practical, day-to-day and week-to-week settings. But, the overall covenantal obligations of each spouse are actually defined by God’s sanction of the general “institution” of marriage (or the Bible’s overall definition of the spousal union of a man and a woman). In other words, God’s general institution of the marriage covenant spells out the obligations of each individual marriage covenant. Similarly, the biblical model of the “covenant church” is also lived out among regular, day-to-day, week-to-week, practical settings. And, just as the inherent obligations of God’s general institution of marriage are regularly practiced in each domestic union between a husband and a wife, the inherent obligations of general institution of Christ’s church are also lived out in each distinct union of local believers mutually pledged unto their beloved future Groom. As we know from the New Covenant Text itself, many obligations were placed by Christ upon the universal church, but we also read that most of them were lived out within regular practical settings among mutually accountable believers. Nevertheless, all obligations of the body of Christ (whether local or universal) remain covenantal in their essence. For a clearer understanding of how the principle works, we might recall how God first instituted the covenant family: He did not announce that it was a “covenant” by simply calling it that by name. No, God united Adam and Eve in the first covenant union by defining what their specific union meant in much wider, institutional terms. Adam had rightly observed that Eve was “bone of my bones and flesh of is flesh” (Genesis 2:23) Then, quite pointedly, the text did not simply announce that Adam and Eve were in covenant union with each other, but it announced (and ordained) the general covenant institution of one man and one woman unto all future mankind. You see, God was ordaining the universal institution of covenant marriage, for a man unto a woman and a woman unto a man, unto all of mankind’s earthly future. The whole institution of “wed-lock” (or “covenant-bond”) was, thus, far greater than that first (or any) single covenant union.
Without that understanding the biblical principle that general (or “macro”) covenantal institutions determine our specific (or “micro”) covenantal obligations, we might be left to wonder about the peculiar way that God pronounced Adam and Eve’s union in saying: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Adam had no earthly mother and father, so God was also describing the obigations of all domestic unions as covenantal unto Him. Without doubt, we know that to be true because later, He directly dedescribed one’s domestic obligation using the word”covenant” (Malachi 2:14); and still later, in Christ’s own Words, He again reconfirmed that each union of husband and wife was directly bound by (and accountable to) God (see Matthew 19: 6, Mark 10:9). Therefore, we know that all husbands and wives who were wed before the term “covenant” was actually used (domestically) in Malachi’s prophecy had been just as covenantally obiged as those married afterward. Men and women would continue to be bound in covenant wedlock whether or not God had ever used the word “covenant” at all in His text. Because the domestic union was descriptively expressed as covenantal in nature from the start, historic wedlock would have been no less binding had Christ, Himself, not further confirmed the point. (But, thanks be to God that He did, or Christians might be arguing today as to whether or not they are still in a covenantal union with their earthly spouses even though they are pledged to Christ in eternal matrimony). God’s covenantal obligations, you see, are ordained by His original sanction of the bonds and defined by their descriptive obligations alone, and not necessary by the biblical use of the word “covenant.” Thus, God used the term “cleave” in the original text to ordain and define every man’s obligation to his own covenant wife.
With that principle in mind, we Christians are to look for God’s original biblical sanctions and descriptive terms of mutual commitment and accountability among ourselves in order to determine whether or not our local assemblies are covenantal in His eyes. If God saves us and then individually obliges us only to Himself, or if He only obliges us unto a universal body of believers, we can conclude that the local body is not covenantal in nature. If, however, we find passages in the New Covenant text that describe distinct bodies of believers directly accountable to God, or we find local members specifically accountable to each other under Him, then we can safely concluded that local congregations are covenantal themselves and should to be acknowledged by us accordingly. The Old Covenant Scriptures laid the groundwork for the covenantal communion of believers as was attested in the sweet savor of one of King David’s prophetic Psalms: “How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity! It is like precious oil poured on the head, running down on the beard, running down on Aaron’s beard, down upon the collar of his robes. It is as if the dew of Hermon were falling on Mount Zion. For there the LORD bestows his blessing, even life forevermore.” (Psalm 133) There is therefore no doubt that those who are predestined to enjoy “life forevermore” only enjoy God’s blessing, here and now, when they “live together in unity.” The Prophet Amos also asked of those who carry God’s heavenly mission on earth: “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3). The attentive reader is left to conclude that they cannot. Mindful, willing unity is therefore a characteristic of those that walk together with God in any blessed way on earth. Paul wrote similarly to the local church at Corinth: “Now, I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” (1 Corinthians 1:10). That was unmistakably a call for distinctive, cognizant unity among local brethren. The doctrinal purity of each local church was to be strictly maintained, and the idea of unity by uniform doctrinal fidelity to Christ was therefore to be the “mind” of each church covenantally obliged to Him. Spiritual fidelity was also to be the “heart” and “soul” of the local church as was significantly mentioned in the account of the first local assembly at Jerusalem: “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul ... .” (Acts 4:32). Paul also exhorted the church at Ephesus that they should be “Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” (Ephesians 4:3). Both unified loving hearts as well as unified minds “in the full assurance of understanding” thus provide the confident fiber to be comfortably pledged, or “knit together,” (Colossians 2:2) within each distinct body of Christ.
The accountable size of a body’s membership is the mark of a healthy congregation, as the moral and doctrinal purity is the mark of its fidelity. A local assembly is therefore to be faithfully pure and accountably sized because purity calls for practical commitment. As Paul wrote to the church at Ephesus, Christ’s local saints have an obligation to: “... grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.” (Ephesians 4:15-16). Members of Christ’s covenantal “body fitly joined together” must be mutually “compacted” in order to fulfill their practical as well as spiritual obligations. The Apostles wrote that each member has a real, practical role within the body or the whole body suffers, and specific needs go unmet (see 1 Corinthians 12:27). Through the faithful “administration,” of the whole, God is genuinely glorified and true thanksgiving abounds within (2 Corinthians 9:7-13). So, like all members of a family, members of a church must be true to their distinctive obligations. A husband cannot play the consumer and peruse the streets to find a “more suitable” family or use the excuse that he is simply “not fulfilled” at home, because individual fulfillment is not in his covenantal job description. He can, however, find boundless satisfactions amid the distinguishing honor of his domestic obligations. That’s the nature of all covenantal obligations — as well as the nature of Christian obligations. When the Apostles wrote to the various early churches, they didn’t speak of a wide marketplace for personal fulfillment, an open storefront for doctrinal possibilities, or a long alleyway for moral exploration. Maintaining purity in unity with mutual accountability was a key point of many of the Epistles. That is why apostolic letters were written to distinct congregations and local church governors, for example: “To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Philippians 1:1-3). It was therefore under local leadership in distinct settings that the bonds of mutual, Christlike love (selfless service) were forged within self disciplined bodies — as Paul added in writing to the above-mentioned assembly at Philippi: “If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.” (Philippians 2:1-3, emphasis added).
That was also the nature of the accountability of each the seven churches of Asia Minor which were specifically called out in the Book of Revelation (see Revelation 1:11). God had specific things to say to each of those individual churches, which logically presupposed an accountable unity within each assembly’s stature before Him. In the early church, each self governed local church was specifically obliged to God (See Revelation 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14) though each was merely one of the total composite number of “churches” then on earth — or ever to be on earth (see Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22). One single jurisdiction did not defer the accountability of the whole before God, though each was clearly answerable according to its definitive obligations directly to Him. Thus, we learn that one’s local covenantal bond does not diminish the general covenantal duty of the universal body of Christ, nor does one’s covenantal bond of the universal church diminish one’s covenantal duty within a distinct, local church. In other words, God, Himself, is the direct covenantal Lord over the universal institution of the church at large as well as Lord of each distinct local church and Lord of each of its individuals in the same sense that He is the covenantal Lord over the universal institution of the domestic family at large as well as Lord of each domestic family and Lord of each of its individuals. No single covenantal bond defers or diminishes one’s covenantal obligations among the others, and all bonds require selfless commitment. So, it may be further observed from biblical context that true New Covenant Christians cannot simply be styled as a non-covenantal “attendees” of their local church any more than they can be styled as “attendees” of Christ’s universal church, or “attendees” of their particular domestic family, or “”attendees” of the universal institution of family. All biblical bonds call for membership — faithful, obliged, attached, committed, pure, Christlike (servant) membership in every sphere and at every level of life.
Such obliging local attachments do not to come without local oversight. Doctrinal like-mindedness and loving like-heartedness are both impossible without having biblically delegated government and orderly discipline undergirding the administration of a local body. Consistent like-mindedness and like-heartedness would simply be impossible without authoritative order under Christ, just as Paul admonished the leaders of the church at Ephesus to: “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.” (Acts 20:28). Any meaningful leadership would prove difficult at best if the delegated “overseers” were left to guess as to which souls they were accountable. And, further, the mutually accountable mode of regular, standard worship was also given: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.” (Colossians 3:16). So, any wise teaching, any rich admonition, any significant communion, any gracious fellowship, or any sound doctrinal or musical ministry would be unfeasible without sound oversight within each locally administered congregation. A high regard for accountable leadership and a graciously submissive membership must therefore work together in the “perfect unity” of the body as a whole (compare 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 and Colossians 3:12-15). Genuine unity threfore calls for more than the occasional encounter among local leaders and members. The unity of the local church calls for regular, formally administered meetings (see Acts 20:7) as well as informal friendships among the variety of members — all for the ongoing care, interaction, edification, and admonition of the local saints (see 1 Thessalonians 5:11, Colossians 3:8-10, Hebrews 3:13, etc.). Each leader and member must therefore actively and regularly participate with the others for the good of the whole, and Christ’s shepherds (as directly accountable to Him in the direction of others) must know over whom they’ve been given His charge (compare John 10:26-28 and John 21:16).
Though the Bible does not give us an exact written constitution for a leadership structure, it does furnish clear administrative guidelines such as selecting elders and deacons [see Acts 6, 1 Timothy 3, and Titus 1]). And, prudence alone dictates that the “overseers,” of each church should supervise the practical membership criteria of the body. If they fail to do so, they will be simply promoting selfish consumerism by their inaction. All members must be officially recognizable by the particular body they serve, which is why the Apostle Paul made specific note of one’s prior, local service when commending her to another congregation: “I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea.” (Romans 16:1). The New Testament text went on to identify the administrative guidelines of New Covenant members: First, Christ is the only universal Sovereign of all (see Ephesians 1:22, Collosians 1:18) and over each local church (compare Revelation 1:1 with 1:4); then “Elders” are the congregationally appointed authoritative overseers or shepherds of the local churches (see 1 Timothy 5:17, Titus 1:5); then deacons are the non-authoritative appointed servants over the extraordinary physical and financial concerns within each church (compare Acts 6:1-4 with 1 Timothy 3:8), There are also regular ministerial services in the body, such as teaching (see 1 Timothy 4:6, 2 Timothy 2:1-2), ministering (see Hebrews 6:10, 1 Peter 4:11), and preaching (see 1 Timothy 4:13, 2 Timothy 4:2) in order to instruct and exhort the congregation in the faith and doctrine of God’s Word — and there is the congregation at large which is equally committed and personally responsible as co-members (compare Romans 1:7 with Romans 12:4-6). The entire local covenant body is thereby mutually engaged in both common purpose and practice for the good of the whole. And, similar to the authoritative elders who must know for whom they are distinctively accountable to pray, visit, serve, oversee, and correct, the deacons must also know for whom they are distinctively obligated to pray, visit, serve, and tend. And, similar to the ministers, teachers, or preachers who must know for whom they are distinctively responsible to pray, disciple, teach, exhort, admonish, and visit, the congregation at large must know to whom they are distinctively, mutually bound to graciously pray, visit, serve, fellowship, and regularly participate in Christ’s corporate communion, worship, Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs — as well as under who’s oversight, service, visitation, correction, teaching, preaching, and prayer they are to co-operate with in Christ’s covenant service.
In the world of consumer oriented church, the marketing managers (still calling themselves a “preacher,” “minister”, “elder,” or going so far as envisioning themselves as an “apostle”), act as self-appointed corporate heads, but typically style themselves as “anointed” directly by God. Without following the legitimate biblical mandates for accountable church leadership, any man (or woman) might anoint himself (or herself) with any authoritative title so desired and position himself (or herself) before any group of itinerant or indiscriminate attendees to be recognized as the head of a “church.” True churches, however, are Christ’s own churches ministered and administered according to the committed bonds of mutual purpose and practice under His biblical Headship. His strength gives endurance to the faithful church (see 1 Corinthians 1:8), and the apostolic framework of administrative authority is the only model that secures both the leadership’s full accountability to Christ as well as the full covenantal rights and responsibilities of the congregation. Only then is the leadership united with the congregation, both in faithful purity and in selfless service to the whole. Beware of all others as human usurpers of Christ’s authority — and especially be cautious of ministers or leaders who out of one side of the pulpit profess the popular refrain that “Christians have no rights,” when out of the other side, they claim their own divine right over the flock.
Conclusion: The formal practice of church “covenanting” came about in the earlier English and Scottish Reformation of the mid-1500’s to mid-1600’s. Christian believers rose up to oppose the archaic medieval formalities of ecclesiastical bishops, archbishops, deans, sub-deans, etc. that had been added to the original purity of the apostolic model for the church. Men and women who had come to know God (see John 17:3) by reading the Scriptures, desired to reform Christianity according to the earliest apostolic precedents (see Ephesians 2:19-21), and they soon became unified with each other in the “Reformed” mode of biblical communion. Under the light of their Reformation, the prior, centralized church was seen as anti-bibical due to its cumbersome human inventions. Under the effort to restore themselves as saintly churches united through pure doctrine, “with one mind” (Romans 15:6), and with “purified souls in obeying the truth,” (1 Peter 1:22), many established themselves into “Puritan” assemblies. By the 1640’s, New England had broken from the ecclesiastical mold of Anglicanism and its churches were formed squarely on the Reformed ways of doctrine, worship, ministry, and administration. At that time, when the first settlers were still precariously perched with their backs against a wild and untamed wilderness, Boston’s first preacher, John Cotton appreciated the need for fellow believers to biblically unite for their mutual care and corporate strength in giving themselves to God: “... the fellowship and estate of church, we finde not in Scripture that God hath done it any other way then by entering all of them together, (as one man) into an holy covenant himselfe, To take the Lord (as the head of the church) for their God, and to give up themselves to him, to be his Church and people.” (John Cotton: The Ways of the Churches of Jesus Christ in New England, 1645).
The Puritans therefore understood that distinct churches were much less formal than the local substructures of a wield human ecclesiastical system, but they were much more than a group of detached seekers and wanderers. Though some Puritans were called “Separatists” in derision, unlike today, that distinction meant that they had separated from the centralized Anglican Church as a unitedly committed local body. According to Puritans of early New England, each local body was to have only one royal Head, who was Christ Jesus alone, and then to posses His earthbound arms, legs, and all other limbs jointly united by the ligaments of moral purity and doctrinal truth in genuine worship and fellowship. Only with unity based in truth, with bonds built upon common purpose, and with both sealed by biblical fidelity, can any distinct body of Christ be fitly covenanted together (again, see Ephesians 4:14-16).
It would seem that the time is ripe (if not already rotten) for our churches to once again return to the original apostolic model. But, when will the marketing show end when the consumer mass marketing of Christian “outreach” is at the heart of both the “seeker” church and its bigger brother, the “church growth” movement?
First, we must remember that they are recent phenomena. They are both endemic of a biblically inconsistent idea that all people can be eternally saved if they are simply groomed by us to “choose” salvation, and the historically inconsistent idea that all we need to do is then discount churches as if they were “outreach” malls. But, we can find solace in the fact that the true church, Christ’s espoused, will again hear His voice and outgrow its youthful infatuation with the glitz and glamour of the world and the allures of a humanistic faith (compare Revelation 3:19-22 and 19:7-8).
Second, we must recall that, according to Christ’s ‘Great Commission,’ there has always been legitimate Christian “outreach” in the form of true discipleship and teaching of God’s own Words and Christ’s own Commands (see Matthew 28: 18-20). For example, there have been numerous self-sacrificing missionaries and “covenant” people of every rank used by God to go out to teach and disciple countless souls throughout the ages, as was foretold by Isaiah: “I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentile; to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from prison, and them that sit in darkness out of prison” (Isaiah 42: 6-7). That passage was a clear messianic reference to Jesus (see v. 1-4) in who’s assemblies the “covenant of the people” are to glorify and praise Him in sanctified communion (as was also foretold by Isaiah in his very next line): “I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.” (Isaiah 42:8 — and also compare Hebrews 2:11-12, 13:15-16, 1 Peter 2:9 4:10-11, etc.). Covenant Christians then, actually go out into the world in order to be used by Christ to “open blind eyes,” etc., and at the same time, they are strictly obliged to keep their communion of saints faithfully pure.
Third, we must recall that visitors (who were often invited by members of the congregation) have always been welcomed as such in the church; however, in centuries past, there would be no question as to whether doctrinal soundness and moral purity were the basic qualifiers for meaningful input, significant interaction, or covenantal membership within the body itself. The regular assembly of saints was strictly to be directed toward the worship of God (see John 4:23-24), the administration of His ordinances (see 1 Corinthians 11:2), the communion of His faithful body (see 1 Corinthians 10:15-17), as becoming His sanctified church (see Ephesians 5:26-27). It was never intended to be turned into a focus upon consumer seekers and wanderers. Church leaders are therefore considered obliged by Christ to strictly admonish biblical purity in the strongest terms (which is still a notable sideline of many modern churches to be sure), but the purpose of the communion of saints is not for them to sit as passive spectators while the preacher gently grooms and persuades outside visitors to make a “decision” for God. That practice confuses the apostolic command for pure praise and sanctified communion with outside evangelism and humanistic psychology, and it will not long be the practice within Christ’s faithful assemblies.
Fourth, and lastly, we must recognize that today’s consumer churches have taken on a double duty that cannot be carried. It will ultimately prove futile to try to maintain the semblance of sound fidelity to Christ within a body of saints in the face of full-bore marketing schemes (oops, “outreach ministries”). But, alas, that double yoke cannot be easy nor its worldly burden be light (see Matthew 11: 29-30). Churches that are driven by marketing managers will either go the way of the world which they have invited into their fold, or they will have to turn back in repentance and reformation toward the pure communion of saints. Recall that the Apostle Paul admonished “you, Corinthians” (2 Corinthians 6:11), meaning the members of the local church at Corinth, in writing:
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.” (2 Corinthians 6:14 - 7:1).
As the purity of Christ’s churches calls for our unity of mind, unity of Spirit, unity of morality, unity of mutual service, and unity of local administration, we must be true to our full New Covenant mandate. We can be confidently assured that Christ’s faithful will again desire His full Headship over their churches, and His covenant members will once again desire to be “yoked together,” united in the pure bonds of Christlike (mutually submissive) fidelity. Therefore, back to a pure form of worship, to a pure form of communion, and to a pure form of administration, His faithfully “espoused” (2 Corinthians 11:2), New Covenant churches will surely return.