What Is a True Church?
Such was seriously asked during the wake of the Protestant Reformation. But the church in every generation should also ask this question. In a sermon delivered on Sunday, September 29, 1878, C.H. Spurgeon preached a message entitled “What the Church Should Be”. His text was I Timothy 3:15. In it, he made the following statement:
“There is a synagogue of Satan, and there is a church of God. There are churches so-called which are not of God, though they take upon themselves his name”.[1]
Rather than plucking this quote from goodreads.com to slander true brothers and sisters whose churches do things differently (not unbiblically) than our own church, or to be so gullible as to think every church that goes by that name could in no wise be a synagogue of Satan, we must look at Spurgeon’s statement in its context.
In a moment we will do just that. But let’s first consider the historical reasons Spurgeon (a Baptist minister holding to Reformed doctrine) would even make this statement. This takes us back to the Protestant Reformation where a number of theologians defined with precision the marks of a true church. Their conclusion biblically contrasts “a synagogue of Satan” from a true house of worship. This is important in our own day since false teachers are alive and well. The Scriptures command us“not [to] believe every spirit, but [to] test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world”.[2] But it’s equally helpful for the opposite reason. A certain tribalism marks our day in which Christians of various stripes sometimes unjustifiably slander true churches. There are various reasons for this: pride, selfish ambition, ignorance, and overzealous spirits.[3]
Two dangerous ditches present themselves on either side. On one side is the ditch of over criticism. This is to look down our noses at churches who may be sound in the basics because they possess articles of orthodoxy but at the same time could be more theologically precise from the pulpit, and who could be more solid in their orthopraxy by, for example, more consistently implementing church discipline. Or, to offer another example, their need to tidy up their church government to better reflect the early church structure. Falling into the ditch of over criticism can lead to an unhealthy tribalistic mentality that causes unnecessary divisions that do not promote the cause of the gospel. We have the liberty to identify more or less pure churches without calling every church that doesn’t look exactly like ours a “synagogue of Satan”. Worse still, it is wrong to label a church “a synagogue of Satan” out of liturgical snobbery because you think there is a better way to order the service. We see this in current debates between some in the CREC who view their liturgy as so superior to, say a PCA or OPC church, that they write such churches off as liturgically inferior. “You get worship wrong”, they say. “And what could be more important than worship? So, since your liturgy is plain and not as flashy as ours, your church is corrupt!”
But falling into the other ditch means we aren’t critical enough. We give a pass to churches who make no attempt at possessing biblical church government, promote entertainment instead of exposition, barely mention the gospel, and diminish the primary means of grace by exalting extrabiblical add-ons in their place.
There are four main historical sources to consider when asking the question, What is a true church? Reformed people turn to John Calvin, The Scots Confession, The Belgic Confession, and the Westminster Confession.
We’ll begin with John Calvin since the other three flow downstream from him. Calvin said:
“Wherever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to Christ’s institution, there, it is not to be doubted, a church of God exists”.[4]
Calvin says the pure preaching of the bible and the right administration of the sacraments are the marks of a true church. Admittedly, he does not go beyond stating more than these two marks. He gives the reason why he sticks with only two marks. And that was, he was comparing the true church to the specific false branches of the church in his own day, namely the Roman Catholic church and Anabaptists. Space does not permit a long discussion of Calvin’s ecumenical pursuit of unity with other Protestants with whom he did not fully agree in every area. Such is evident in his letters and other writings, as well as in the above statement (where the two marks are apparent“it is not to be doubted, a church of God exists”). In the same section of the Institutes he reveals his desire for Protestant unity. Calvin asserts:
“The church is called ‘catholic’ or ‘universal’ because there could not be two or three churches unless Christ be torn asunder- which could not happen…They are made truly one since they live together in one faith, hope and love, and in the same Spirit of God”.[5]
It seems that Calvin was looking only for the essentials when he pointed out a true church, not necessarily an exhaustive list of ideal features. This is a good course of action, though it seems at times that many in the Reformed world don’t follow suit. We like to argue. We like to argue a lot. In my estimation, debate is the only path to precision in one’s beliefs. Going back to the sources (a Protestant mantra taken from the Latin ad fontes), means first arguing our convictions from Scripture, and second from the writings of the fathers. So, we rightly argue over big things like the regulative principle, denominational corruption, the person of God, the person of Christ, the gospel, the active obedience of Christ, the law, and other important features critical to orthodoxy. We also should seek to be true to Scripture in the little things regarding church practice and policy. This is precisely why God called and equipped elders to be the eyes, ears, and mouth for the people. It’s not only in accordance with sound wisdom, but also biblical precedent to allow the elders to do their job in leading a church to greater conformity to the Scriptures. This requires debate and biblically informed argumentation. This is not as much of a problem in conservative denominations, especially of the Presbyterian variety (ex. PCA and OPC) due to their confessional standards, long standing traditions, and unified church government, which can often yield a degree of greater theological accountability across the board. This is not to say they are without their problems (consider the PCA’s current mess). However, conservative (and especially Reformed), independent churches must learn to do a better job of yielding to their elders on questionable issues. This is even true with strongly confessional churches since there are various interpretations and applications of church practices (ex. issues surrounding the Sabbath). Disagreements among parishioners can be solved by the elders setting the policies and procedures of the church where Scripture does not speak explicitly. They have the authority to do so, as well as the duty.
But Reformed people also like to argue over little things. And little arguments can turn into big divisions and factions not envisioned as proper or noble by the apostle Paul.[6] Such disagreements inside of a local church can fracture a local church, effectively splitting the elders (session) from the congregation. And such disagreements among like-minded local churches can fracture the universal church as local churches situated in the same community are at each other’s throats. Such does not serve well the impact of the Great Commission. Calvin warns us:
“The pure ministry of the Word and pure mode of celebrating the sacraments are, as we say, sufficient pledge and guarantee that we may safely embrace, as church any society in which both these marks exist. The principle extends to the point that we must not reject it so long as it retains them, even if it otherwise swarms with many faults.”[7]
So, Calvin’s identification of a true church stripped down to the essentials is a good precedent in judging the faithfulness of any church. But Calvin’s answer to the identity of a true church was later enlarged by six men led by a pupil of John Calvin, the Scotsmen, John Knox. These men formulated the Scots Confession (1560), which added the third mark of church discipline:
“Because that Satan from the beginning has labored to deck his pestilent synagogue with the title of the kirk [church] of God and has inflamed the hearts of cruel murderers to persecute, trouble, and molest the true kirk and members thereof, as Cain did Abel, Ismael Isaac, Esau Jacob (Gen. 4:21, 27), and the whole priesthood of the Jews, Christ Jesus Himself and His apostles after Him (Matt. 23; John 11; Acts 3), it is one thing most requisite that the true kirk be discerned from the filthy synagogue by clear and perfect notes, lest we being deceived receive and embrace to our own condemnation the one for the other…The notes therefore, of the true kirk of God, we believe, confess and avow to be first, the true preaching of the Word of God…Secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus…Last, ecclesiastical discipline…Wheresoever then these former notes are seen and of any time continue (be the number never so few, about two or three), there without all doubt is the true kirk of Christ, who according to His promise is in the midst of them…such as was in Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, and other places (Acts 16, 18, etc.; I Cor. 1; Acts 20).[8]
To the true preaching of the Word of God and right administration of the sacraments is added church discipline as a third defining mark of the true church. This third mark agrees with Calvin in spirit since he devotes a lengthy section to church discipline in the Institutes.[9] This is why churches within the Calvinistic tradition typically refer to three marks of a true church, instead of just the two that Calvin explicitly mentions in his statement on how to identify a true church.
In similar fashion, the Belgic Confession, written around the same time as the Scots Confession, also highlights three marks of a true church. It was authored by another pupil of Calvin, a French-speaking, Reformed pastor, Guido de Brès. On the identity of the true church, the Belgic states:
“The marks by which the true Church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin.”[10]
Once again, we note the same three marks: purity of doctrinal preaching, pure administration of the sacraments, and the exercise of church discipline.
The simplicity by which Reformed churches traditionally operate is stunning in our own day since so much of the church depends upon rock bands, smoke machines, lights, programs, TED talk type sermons, small groups and a host of other carnal gimmicks baptized in the name of Christ – all of which diminish the primary means of grace, which God hath ordained for the spiritual benefit of His people.
But what does a true church require according to Reformed teaching? First, that the Word of God be rightly, accurately, and purely preached. Second, that the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper be rightly administered in accordance with a proper understanding of justification by faith (no baptismal regeneration here), and the exercise of church discipline by the elders of the church.
Finally, the Westminster Confession (1646), perhaps surprisingly so, bears softer language than the other confessions in identifying a true church. Following Calvin, it uses the word catholic to describe the church (meaning “universal”) giving a nod to the needed unity among Protestants. Additionally, it speaks about the purity of the church as something that should be measured in degrees (“more or less”). Also, chapter 25 doesn’t explicitly mention church discipline as a mark even though chapter 30 addresses discipline at length.
“This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.”[11]
So, rather than casting stones at other assemblies of worship who they didn’t agree with wholeheartedly, the Westminster divines demonstrated a proper ecumenical spirit, one that did not compromise the Scriptures or skirt their own convictions as rooted in the bible, yet one that also recognized the reality of true Christians of every stripe being members of “more or less pure” churches.
Now, let’s return to Spurgeon’s sermon that began this article because there is no doubt that he was not only fully aware of, but also promoted, confessional teaching in his ministry. The London Baptist Confession followed in the family tree of the above confessions quoted. Therefore, there was both an historical and biblical context to his words when he said:
“There is a synagogue of Satan, and there is a church of God. There are churches so-called which are not of God, though they take upon themselves his name”.[12]
In his sermon, Spurgeon compares the true church to the temple of Diana that young Timothy could see from his post in Ephesus. This was a pagan temple dedicated to a pagan goddess, not another local church down the street trying to be faithful to the Scriptures. In fact, Spurgeon even points out the fact that true Christians who are members of true churches should pursue unity, not division. In the same sermon, he says:
“Happy are we if we are members of that church, yes, members of Christ himself by the living faith which unites us to the living God. Never let us speak disrespectfully of the church of God, nor think of her with anything other than love and with intense devotion for her interests, for she belongs to God. Let us pray for her peace and prosperity, since she is the city of the great King. Let us ask the Lord daily to make his own church more and more visible and powerful in the midst of mankind, so that she may come out ‘fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners.’”[13]
Interestingly, the Belgic Confession even defines persecution of the true church as a mark of the false church. False Christians “persecute those who live holily according to the Word of God”.[14]One of the marks of a false Christian, one could say, is that they troll true Christians with slanderously induced false charges. This is to say, they are sometimes too quick to slap a non-Christian label on one who is otherwise sound and orthodox, but not a member of their tribe. This ought not be so among Reformed brethren.
Spurgeon’s main points uphold the three marks of Calvin and the Confessions. I have no doubt the three marks were on his mind. He has three main headings. The first is The Glorious Name of the Church- “the church of the living God”. He defines a true church this way:
“What is a true church? [A] Christian church is an assembly of faithful men: of men who know the truth, believe it, affirm it, and adhere to it.”[15]
Here he emphasizes that the truth of Scripture is upheld by true churches. The true church is composed of those who know the truth, believe the truth, affirm the truth, and live according to the truth. Simply put, a true church is made up of bible believing Christians.
His second heading is Her Design In Reference to God. This follows his first heading wherein he says that a true church is in subjection to the authority of God’s Word. Spurgeon compares God to a father who has authority in his own house. He says:
“A man’s house is, also, the place of his paternal rule. In the church we are under the present rule of our heavenly Father…If [one] is a father he expects that his word should rule his household. In the blessed household of God our Father, our Lord is the sole ruler. In God’s house we know no law except God’s law; and we acknowledge no legislator except Jesus…Blessed is that rule, and blessed are those who submit to it, doing his commandments, listening to the voice of His word. May God grant us grace to stand up for the crown rights of King Jesus, and the paternal authority of God over his own church.”[16]
Spurgeon’s final heading is The Design of the Church In Reference to the Truth. Here he emphasizes the important duty of true churches to uphold doctrinal standards and practices with heartfelt conviction. He says:
“What does the expression mean – the pillar and foundation? I think it means, first, that in the church the truth should reside. In the church of the living God it always does abide, even as a pillar does not move from its place.”[17]
Throughout the body of Spurgeon’s sermon, he mentions all three marks. First, he mentions the importance of the pure preaching of the Word. He says that “a church is unchurched which is not faithful to the truth…when the grand old doctrines of the gospel are also despoiled.”[18] He goes on to say:
“Do you notice nowadays, how all the great truths are being spirited away? Men use the words, but they mock the ear, for they reject the sense: they hand us nuts; we crack them and we find that the worm of modern thought has eaten out the kernel…It is nothing but the name of a church when the doctrines of God’s infallible word are trodden in the dust.”[19]
Second, he says a true church rightly administers the sacraments. He explicitly says, “A church ceases to be a church of Christ in proportion also as she alters the ordinances of God.”[20] Note that here he stops short of saying that churches who practice infant baptism are false. Spurgeon held to believer’s baptism and sometimes made disparaging remarks about the practice of infant baptism. But to my knowledge, he stopped short of saying that Presbyterians were false brethren or a synagogue of Satan. If he did, it was not because of their view of baptism but because of their errant view of the gospel, or perhaps a compromising stance with the world concerning other orthodox issues.
And third, he points out that discipline is a mark of a true church. Again, though a committed Baptist, he stops short of saying that Presbyterian churches are false churches because they allow children of believing parents to be non-communicant members. Instead, he speaks about the importance of not allowing the unregenerate to take over:
“An unholy, unregenerated church can never be the pillar of the truth. If there is a failure in vital godliness, if humble walking with God is neglected, the church cannot long remain a healthy church.”[21]
What can we learn from Spurgeon’s sermon and the larger Reformed world of confessions on the nature of a true church? Let me leave you with five practical takeaways:
1. If the church you belong to does not bear the above three marks, you need to leave it. There is no use wasting away spiritually in an atmosphere that does not hold up the essentials. Such indeed is a synagogue of Satan and not part of the true church of the Lord Jesus Christ. You are being disobedient when you stay, and obedient when you leave.
2. If you are in a church that identifies with these three marks, then don’t leave it. You do more damage than good to your own soul and potentially those around you when you leave a biblical church for unbiblical reasons. This causes confusion and questions from others who may also leave.
3. Choose to be charitable in your dealings with like-minded brothers and sisters who attend churches that bear the three marks. Get over denominational squabbles and community infighting between Christians. This mars your Christian testimony before the watching world. Learn to have a right ecumenical spirit, one that does not compromise Scripture, but also one that does not seek or cause unnecessary divisions with true brothers or sisters in Christ.
4. Be careful not to become a church pundit, thinking you are the world’s expert in discerning the healthiness of a church. Look to your leaders. Talk to your leaders. Respect your leaders. Be grounded in the Scriptures and be reasonable and not overly critical. Pray for the Spirit to grant you wisdom and confess your personal sins before you point out the perceived faults of your own church. If your church bears the three marks (even if imperfectly so), ask yourself if your own heart bears the three marks of love, grace, and wisdom.
5. Do not keep looking for the perfect church. In fact, it’s not a bad option to be committed to one that has room to grow in the three marks. If a church is working toward the three marks and not compromising doctrine, consider it a good place for you to grow even as the church grows in God’s grace. To borrow Spurgeon’s mantra, don’t look for the perfect church, and if you find one, then don’t join it lest it become imperfect.
[1] https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/what-the-church-should-be/#flipbook/
[2] I John 4:1, ESV
[3] I Corinthians 13:1, ESV
[4] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.9, 1023, Edited by John T. McNeill, Translated by Ford Lewis Battles.
[5] Institues, 4.2, 1014.
[6] I Corinthians 1:11-13
[7] Institutes, 4.12, 1025.
[8] The Scottish Confession (1560), Article XVIII, 198-199, Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, Vol. 2 1552-1566, Compiled and Introductions by James T. Dennison, Jr.
[9] 4.12-29
[10] The Belgic Confession (1561), Article XXIX, 442, Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, Dennison.
[11] The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), 25.4, 264, Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, Dennison
[12] https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/what-the-church-should-be/#flipbook/
[13] https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/what-the-church-should-be/#flipbook/
[14] Belgic, Art 29.
[15] https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/what-the-church-should-be/#flipbook/
[16] https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/what-the-church-should-be/#flipbook/
[17] https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/what-the-church-should-be/#flipbook/
[18] https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/what-the-church-should-be/#flipbook/
[19] https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/what-the-church-should-be/#flipbook/
[20] https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/what-the-church-should-be/#flipbook/
[21] https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/what-the-church-should-be/#flipbook/