The Living Church

The Convictions Of A Lifelong Pastor

John Stott

• Publisher: IVP
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781844747658
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Theology

What exactly is a living church?
Author John Stott explains, 'We need more radically conservative churches: "conservative" in the sense that they conserve what Scripture plainly requires, but radical in relation to that combination of tradition and convention that we call 'culture'. Scripture is unchangeable, but culture is not.'
'The Living Church' brings together a number of characteristics of what the author calls 'authentic' or 'living' church. The marks, being clearly biblical, are timeless and need to be preserved.
We are encouraged to become learning churches, caring churches, worshipping churches and evangelising churches.
John Stott unpacks the Bible's wisdom rigorously with a teacher's skill and applies it faithfully with a pastor's heart. Becoming a living church is not an impossible goal.

Chapter 1

Essentials: God’s vision for his church

As we begin to consider the essential marks of a living church, I am making three assumptions.

First, I am assuming that we are all committed to the church. We are not only Christian people; we are also church people. We are not only committed to Christ, we are also committed to the body of Christ. At least I hope so. I trust that none of my readers is that grotesque anomaly, an unchurched Christian. The New Testament knows nothing of such a person. For the church lies at the very centre of the eternal purpose of God. It is not a divine afterthought. It is not an accident of history. On the contrary, the church is God’s new community. For his purpose, conceived in a past eternity, being worked out in history, and to be perfected in a future eternity, is not just to save isolated individuals and so perpetuate our loneliness, but rather to build his church, that is, to call out of the world a people for his own glory. Indeed, Christ died for us, not only ‘to redeem us from all wickedness’, but also ‘to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good’ (Titus 2:14). So then, the reason why we are committed to the church is that God is so committed. True, we may be dissatisfied, even disillusioned, with some aspects of the institutional church. But still we are committed to Christ and his church.

---

The church lies at the very centre of the eternal purpose of God.

---

Secondly, we are all committed to the mission of the church. We believe that the church has a double identity. On the one hand we are called out of the world to belong to God, and on the other we are sent back into the world to witness and to serve. Moreover, the mission of the church is modelled on the mission of Christ. He himself said so. ‘As the Father has sent me, I am sending you’ (John 20:21). His mission meant for him the incarnation. He did not stay in the safe immunity of his heaven. Instead, he emptied himself of his glory and humbled himself to serve. He actually entered our world. He took our nature, lived our life, and died our death. He could not have identified with us more closely than he did. It was total identification, though without any loss of identity, for he became one of us without ceasing to be himself. He became human without ceasing to be God.

And now he calls us to enter other people’s worlds, as he entered ours. All authentic mission is incarnational mission. We are called to enter other people’s social and cultural reality: into their thought-world, struggling to understand their misunderstandings of the gospel, and into the pain of their alienation, weeping with those who weep. And all this without compromising our Christian beliefs, values and standards.

Thirdly, we are all committed to the reform and renewal of the church. In many parts of the world, especially in significant regions of Africa, Asia and Latin America, the church is growing rapidly, although often the growth is in size rather than in depth, for there is much superficiality of discipleship everywhere. Nevertheless it is growing. In other parts of the world, however, especially in the West, if I may generalize, the church is not growing. Its development is stunted. Its waters are stagnant. Its breath is stale. It is in a state not of renewal but of decay. We long to see it continually being reformed and renewed by the word and the Spirit of God.

---

What is God’s vision for his church?

---

Having considered our threefold common commitment (to the church, to its mission and to its renewal), we are ready to ask a basic question: what is God’s vision for his church? What are the distinguishing marks of a living church? To answer these questions we have to go back to the beginning and take a fresh look at the first Spirit-filled church in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. Mind you, as we do so, it is essential that we are realistic. For we have a tendency to idealize or romanticize the early church. We look at it through tinted spectacles. We speak of it in whispers, as if it had no blemishes. Then we miss the rivalries, the hypocrisies, the immoralities and the heresies which troubled the first-century church as they trouble the church today.

---

The early church had been radically stirred by the Holy Spirit.

---

Nevertheless, one thing is certain. The early church, in spite of all its excesses and failures, had been radically stirred by the Holy Spirit. So what did that early church look like? What evidence did it give of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit? If we can answer these questions, noting carefully the essentials which Luke mentions in Acts 2, we will be able to discern the marks of a living church today. Luke focuses on four marks:

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favour of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

(Acts 2:42–47)

A learning church

The first characteristic Luke selects is very surprising; I do not think we would have chosen it. It is that a living church is a learning church. ‘They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching’ (verse 42).

One might say that the Holy Spirit opened a school in Jerusalem that day. The school teachers were the apostles, whom Jesus had appointed and trained, and there were three thousand pupils in the kindergarten! It was a very remarkable situation.

We note that those new Spirit-filled converts were not enjoying a mystical experience which led them to neglect their intellect, despise theology or stop thinking. On the contrary, ‘they met constantly to hear the apostles teach’ (reb). So I do not hesitate to say that anti-intellectualism and the fullness of the Holy Spirit are mutually incompatible. For who is the Holy Spirit? He is ‘the Spirit of Truth’; that was one of Jesus’ favourite descriptions of him. It stands to reason, therefore, that wherever the Spirit of truth is at work, truth matters.

---

Wherever the Spirit of truth is at work, truth matters.

---

Notice something else about those first Christian believers. They did not suppose that, because they had received the Holy Spirit, he was the only teacher they needed, and they could dispense with human teachers. Not at all. They acknowledged that Jesus had called the apostles to be the teachers of the church. So they sat at the apostles’ feet. They were eager to learn all they could. And they submitted to the apostles’ authority which, incidentally, was authenticated by miracles. For if verse 42 alludes to the teaching of the apostles, verse 43 refers to their many signs and wonders; indeed the main purpose of miracles throughout Scripture was to authenticate each fresh stage of revelation, especially the prophets in the Old Testament and the apostles in the New. Thus the apostle Paul could refer to his miracles as ‘the signs of a true apostle’ (2 Corinthians 12:12, rsv).

---

A living church is a learning church.

---

What then is the application of all this to us? How is it possible for us to submit ourselves and our churches to the teaching authority of the apostles? For we must insist that there are no apostles in the church today. To be sure, there are bishops and superintendents, church planters and pioneer missionaries, and perhaps we could call their ministries ‘apostolic’, giving them the adjective. But we would be wise to reserve the noun for the Twelve, Paul and perhaps James. At least my Pentecostal friends, some of whom claim the title ‘apostle’, agree with me that there is nobody in the church today (nor has been since the apostle John died) who has an authority comparable to that of the apostles Paul, John, Peter and James. If there were, we would have to add their teaching to that of the New Testament.

The early church understood this well. Take Ignatius, Bishop of Syrian Antioch, whose death scholars date at about 110 ad. Condemned to death as a Christian, he was travelling to Rome to be executed, and during his voyage he wrote seven or more letters to such churches as those in Rome, Ephesus, Smyrna and Tralles, in which he several times expressed this conviction: ‘I do not issue you with commands like Peter and Paul, for they were apostles; I am but a condemned man.’ He was a bishop, one of the earliest evidences of the rise of the monarchical episcopate, but he was not an apostle.

So I repeat my question. If there are no apostles comparable to Peter or Paul in the church today, how can we submit to apostolic teaching authority? The answer is obvious. The teaching of the apostles is found in the New Testament. It is here that their teaching has been bequeathed to us in its definitive form. This is the true ‘apostolic succession’, namely a continuity of apostolic doctrine, made possible by the New Testament.

Something similar was stated by the bishops of the Anglican Communion during their 1958 Lambeth Conference. In their statement on the Bible they wrote:

The church is not ‘over’ the Holy Scriptures, but ‘under’ them, in the sense that the process of canonization was not one whereby the church conferred authority on the books, but one whereby the church acknowledged them to possess authority. And why? The books were recognized as giving the witness of the apostles to the life, teaching, death and resurrection of the Lord and the interpretation by the apostles of these events. To that apostolic authority the church must ever bow.1

So we affirm first of all that a living church is a learning church, a church submissive to the teaching authority of the apostles. Its pastors expound Scripture from the pulpit. Its parents teach their children out of the Scriptures at home, and its members read and reflect on the Scriptures every day in order to grow in Christian discipleship. The Spirit of God leads the people of God to honour the word of God. Fidelity to the teaching of the apostles is the first mark of an authentic and living church.

A caring church

If the first mark of a living church is study, the second is fellowship. ‘They devoted themselves . . . to the fellowship’. ‘Fellowship’ is the well-known Greek word koinonia which expresses our common (koinos) Christian life, what we share as believers. As we will see more fully in chapter 5, koinonia bears witness to two complementary truths: both what we share in together and what we share out together. And it is on this latter that Luke lays his emphasis here:

All the believers were together and had everything in common (koina). Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need (Acts 2:44–45).

These are disturbing verses, the kind we jump over rather quickly. What do they mean? Do they teach that every living church will become a monastic community and that every Spirit-filled believer will follow the example of the first believers literally?

A few miles east of Jerusalem at that time the Essene leaders of the Qumran Community were committed to the common ownership of their property, and new members handed over all their money and possessions when they were initiated. So then, did Jesus intend all his disciples to follow their example, selling their property and possessions and sharing the proceeds? The Anabaptists of the sixteenth-century ‘Radical ...