Beloved,
We are swiftly nearing the conclusion of Daniel, and what a journey it has been. There have been times when I have wondered if we would make it out alive, and there is still the very real possibility that we won’t! But God has been a faithful Guide, and even the most obscure apocalyptic texts in Daniel have proven to be pervasively Christ-exalting and incredibly relevant to 21st century Christians like us.
Every time I preach, there are any number of theological categories operating beneath the surface that I don’t explicitly mention. One that has undergirded my entire exposition of Daniel in its application to us is the distinction between the church as institution and the church as organism. This distinction, ordinarily attributed to Abraham Kuyper, has been understood in different ways in the history of theology, but at its best, it differentiates between two inseparable and interdependent dimensions of the church.
The church as institution, draws upon the building metaphors used to speak of the church as an organized structure which is led by ordained officers, sustained by word and sacrament, and preserved by formal discipline. This is what D.A. Carson calls the church as church.
The church as organism, draws upon the botanical and biological metaphors used to speak of the church as a living tree or body with each part or member performing special functions according to their God-given gifts and callings. This is what Carson calls the church as Christians.
I haven’t fleshed out this distinction in our sermon series because time has not permitted me (I’m already preaching too long as it is!), but it has been present in many of the messages as we have grappled with the mission of the church in the world, particularly as it relates to politics and culture. The church on earth is the visible manifestation of the heavenly kingdom (i.e., the sovereign and saving rule of the Son of Man). As that kingdom clashes with man’s kingdom, what is the mission God has given His kingdom people on earth?
Well, it all depends on whether you are referring to the church as church (i.e., institution) or the church as Christians (i.e., organism).
Listen to how Alan Strange fleshes this out in his hot-off-the-press and very insightful book Empowered Witness: Politics, Culture, and the Spiritual Mission of the Church. He writes, “The calling, or mission, of the church as the church is to proclaim the gospel to the ends of the earth, not to be another merely (or even chiefly) political, social, or economic institution. The church, in its full-orbed existence, may have political, economic, or social concerns that develop out of its mission, but those aspects are not what primarily mark and define it.” Later he draws this out with the institution-organism distinction, stating, “While it is the mission of the church as institute to evangelize and disciple all her members among the nations of the world, it is not the mission of the church as institute to incarnate the Christian faith in all of life. It is the call of the members of the church as organism to live the whole of their lives from the standpoint of faith and obedience, taking the ethics taught them by the church, for instance, and employing Christian ethics in their businesses, politics, culture, and so on. The church as institute must remain the church, a spiritual entity, and does not become the state, a civil entity, or the family, a biological entity. It does not even seek to do as institute what its members may do, singly or collectively, in the ordinary living of their Christian lives; this latter imperative is the task of the church as organism.”
Let me use myself as an example to flesh this out. With regards to the church as institution, I am a pastor. My calling as such is to lead the people entrusted to my care by word, sacrament, discipline, and evangelism. But with regards to the church as organism, I am a Christian. My calling is to live unto Christ in every sphere (including the domestic and civil spheres) as salt and light. When I cast my vote this year for the presidential election, I will be voting as a Christian, not as a pastor. I will be attempting to the best of my ability to be faithful to God, voting for the candidate I believe most closely aligns with God’s righteousness because I want God to be glorified in the civil sphere. But I won’t be getting into the pulpit and telling you that you need to vote for this or that candidate (or even mandating that you vote at all). Why not? Because that would go beyond the bounds of the authority God has given me (which is ministerial and declarative, not magisterial and legislative) and the mission God has given the church as the church.
There is so much to say here, but I simply wanted to make you aware of the important distinction. If you are wanting to explore this subject more, especially in relation to the history of American Presbyterianism, I encourage you to get a copy of Dr. Strange’s new book. It is a relatively short and easy read, and it is well worth your time. For if we get confused about our mission, we just might end up wasting our lives and leading the visible church into ruin.
Yours in Christ,
Pastor Nick
