Guest Post by Robert Sagers
Theologian Gregg R. Allison, coming off the publication of his Historical Theology, is in the final stages of writing a major volume on the doctrine of the church, forthcoming from Crossway. Dr. Allison was kind to take the time to answer a few questions on ecclesiology.
Robert Sagers: Do you think it’s possible to formulate an “evangelical” doctrine of the church?
Gregg R. Allison: Howard Snyder has remarked, “I will argue that while there is such a thing as evangelical ecclesiology, we might more appropriately speak of evangelical ecclesiologies, in the plural, and ask what each variety might contribute to the whole” (Howard A. Snyder, “The Marks of Evangelical Ecclesiology,” in John G. Stackhouse, ed., Evangelical Ecclesiology: Reality or Illusion? [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004], 77). In one sense, I concur: I do not believe that Scripture is characterized by contradictory ecclesiologies that render any attempt to amalgamate those diverse strands into a unified ecclesiology both naïve and impossible. At the same time, any such evangelical doctrine of the church will be at best a generic discussion, treating the church’s nature, attributes, ministries, government, and ordinances with broad strokes only. Such a generic doctrinal formulation represents neither the church as presented in Scripture nor the reality of the church experienced.
Specifically, an ecclesiology must be derived from either a theological conviction that there is more continuity between the covenants—the Abrahamic, old, and new covenants—or less continuity. One’s position on this issue of continuity or discontinuity affects what Scripture enters into consideration in the formulation of one’s ecclesiology; how one views the relationship between Israel and the church; the extent to which one allows the rules and regulations governing circumcision to pertain to the church’s practice of baptism; the degree to which one permits the Old Testament priesthood to influence one’s view of the church’s ministry; and so forth.
Furthermore, an ecclesiology must embrace either infant baptism—as saving them from original sin through regeneration; as incorporating them into the covenant community—or believer’s baptism. Additionally, an ecclesiology must advocate for a particular church polity or government—episcopalian, presbyterian, congregational, or some other structure. Moreover, an ecclesiology must represent either complementarianism or egalitarianism on the issue of women in ministry—either women are prohibited from the office of pastor/elder, or they are permitted to hold that office. Finally, an ecclesiology must advocate for a specific view of the Lord’s Supper—either transubstantiation, consubstantiation, memorial view, spiritual presence view, or some combination of (non-incommensurate) views. To suspend judgment on these and other issues may strike some people as encouraging unity and furthering dialog between opposing ecclesiological persuasions, but what is sacrificed in the process is the specificity of the church as presented in Scripture and experienced in reality. Any ecclesiology worth its salt must be faithful to Scripture—all that it affirms about the church—and oriented toward reality rather than merely theoretical.
RES: Which aspect, or aspects, of ecclesiology do you think Christians neglect to their own detriment? Why?
GRA: Let me answer by focusing on what aspects have been commonly neglected or underdeveloped in evangelical ecclesiologies (the following aspects are not necessarily in any particular order).
First, for the last several decades evangelical ecclesiologies have for the most part concentrated on the functions of the church, and thus neglected to their bane the identity—the nature and attributes—of the church. For me, it is not possible to consider what the church should do until a prior matter—what the church is—has been settled.
Second, the issue of church discipline has been neglected; thus, ecclesiology has failed to urge local churches, which for the most part have abandoned the practice of church discipline, to initiate or rehabilitate this essential element for the purity of the church.
Third, the unity of the church, which is the subject of Jesus’ high priestly prayer (John 17) and Paul’s instructions (Eph 4), to mention just two treatments of the topic in Scripture, has been sorely neglected, resulting in a failure of ecclesiology to spur local churches toward greater oneness among their own members and greater interdependence among themselves.
Fourth, the headship of Jesus Christ over the church, while often given a nod in evangelical ecclesiologies, is rarely emphasized, resulting in local churches continuing to set their own agendas and following their own priorities instead of constantly asking themselves what the mind of the Lord is for their mission.
Speaking of mission, neglect of the missional characteristic of the church by ecclesiologies has led to confusion over what the gospel is; how the church’s mission relates to broader matters such social justice and the kingdom of God; why evangelism and missions are not just matters for a church committee to handle; and how the church is to engage in missional endeavors in the midst of cultures that are becoming increasingly post-Christian or violently anti-Christian. At the same time, I’m encouraged by some recent ecclesiologies that are addressing these and other commonly neglected aspects.
RES: In your research, which books were most helpful to you in thinking through the doctrine of the church?
GRA: I rarely came across a book that failed to provide some help for me, and this pattern was true whether I was consulting books coming from my own basic orientation to ecclesiology or books from a completely different perspective. Those in the former category reminded me of the key issues to treat and reinforced my thinking; those in the latter category challenged me to consider key issues from a different perspective and prompted me to address matters that I had never contemplated. For all this help, I am very grateful!
Specific books included:
—P. T. Forsyth, The Church, The Gospel, and Society (London: Independent Press, 1962), though first published over a century ago, anticipated a surprising number of contemporary issues and addressed them in a prescient manner, paving the way for some of my comments and encouraging a passionate boldness in treating certain issues.
—Simon Chan, Liturgical Theology: The Church As Worshiping Community (Downers Grove: IVP, 2006) reinforced my basic sense that an ecclesiology needs to begin with a discussion of the ontology of the church—its nature and attributes—followed by a treatment of the church’s functions—its ministries.
—John Webster, Word and Church: Essays in Church Dogmatics (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2001) and Michael Horton, People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), in different yet complementary ways, critiqued the far too common notion that the church somehow takes the place of Jesus Christ—it becomes his hands, his feet, his heart—and underscored the fact that our Lord’s ministerial acts to gather, protect, and preserve his church are not transferable to human ministers. That the Son through the Spirit freely decides to give gifts to his followers and empower them to be his servants for preaching, leading, praying, shepherding, and nourishing the church is a wonderful privilege, not a prerogative they take to themselves. It both warns them not to imagine that they as leaders and members of the church somehow act as vicars of Christ in his stead, and to live their reality as servants of Christ with great humility and complete dependence on their Head.
