[5] Vision Magazine, no 12, Nov – Dec 1975

The Shape of the Church to Come

by Alan Langstaff

This is the second of a series of articles dealing with the question "Where is the Charismatic Movement Going?". The first article appeared in the Sept/Oct issue of this magazine and dealt with the past and the present stages and developments in the charismatic renewal. This article looks toward the future.

WHAT is the big issue in the charismatic renewal today? It is the question of where is it all headed? What will be the shape of the church to come? How will it be structured? What will it be like? How will it function?

When we ask questions like these we move into the realm of doctrine — the doctrine of the church, and because not everyone agrees about doctrine this can threaten the beautiful unity that has so far existed in the charismatic renewal. But this need not be so. Before we look, then, at the shape of the church to come — let's look at the question of "doctrine and unity".

DOCTRINE AND UNITY

There has been an unfortunate tendency in the charismatic renewal to play down the importance of doctrine. "People can't agree on doctrine so let's just get together in Jesus" is what many are saying. This is both naive and simplistic. You can't even get together under the "Lordship of Jesus Christ" without some doctrinal understanding of who Jesus is and what it means to have Him Lord of your life and His church! (Jesus can be many things to many people. To some He is a great teacher, a good example, but to the Christian He is the Son of God and the Saviour of the world.)

Behind many of the tensions that have come to the surface recently in the charismatic renewal are basic doctrinal differences. Unless these differences are recognised and faced, there will be no real lasting unity, because unity must not simply be based on love but also on truth. As Dr. Robert Frost pointed out recently at a Ministers' Meeting at Melodyland Christian Centre, "The devil will always try to deceive us by either keeping us from the truth, or making it only half the truth or else adding something to the truth, i.e. to obscure, dilute or pollute the truth. Jesus however always ministered truth in love and love in truth"; therefore we should endeavour to speak the truth in love.

This should in no way hinder fellowship or spiritual unity. Indeed, to not honestly face differences only produces what the Canadian Catholic Bishops' Message on the Charismatic Renewal (p. 12) calls a "False ecumenism . .. One sees groups here and there with a pronounced tendency to smooth away the differences which still divide Christians. This is done in the hope of strengthening the bonds of brotherhood, solidarity and communion in Christ. Despite the good intentions behind it, this behaviour is deceptive. By playing down the differences that separate Christians, it establishes among them relations from which no one emerges with a true identity. Under such

[6] Vision Magazine, no 12, Nov – Dec 1975

conditions there can be no authentic togetherness nor any true exchange. This is a world away from authentic ecumenism."

However, if doctrinal differences are faced honestly in love, it need not hinder fellowship even though in practical terms it will limit the areas of co-operation and involvement.

With this in mind we turn to examine the question of "The Shape of the Church to Come".

THE SHAPE OF THE CHURCH TO COME

Rev. Jack Hayford of the Church on the Way, Van Nuys in Los Angeles has written an excellent circular letter on "Unity of the Body of Christ and Discipleship" in which he asks this important question: "What is the ultimate goal of the Holy Spirit's renewal and restoration of full New Testament life and blessing in the Church in terms of church structure and relationships?" He goes on to answer his own question thus:

"I believe the Biblical answer is known to us all. The Ephesian epistle seems to sum it up; enunciating "full stature", and "without spot or wrinkle" as goals to be anticipated. But the practical question remains as to whether or not that work of the Lord in His Church is intended to create a visible, identifiably different Body (the "living" Church) from the larger corpus (the "institutional" Church).

"I do not believe the Bible teaches that goal.

"Jesus' Kingdom parable of the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13:24-30) clearly addresses such a question. Ezekiel's vision (ch. 37) of the dry bones' revival would readily suggest God's desire to put life in dead structures, wherever there are those who will "hear the Word of the Lord" (v. 4). The metaphor of the wineskins does not require the discarding of old ones, but holds the possibility of refurbishing - renewing — the old to a newness of quality. (Compare "kainos", new in quality, with "neos", brand new, noting the ancient practice of washing old skins with water to restore newness of quality. In other words, old structures can be restored to contain newness, if the "washing of water" is permitted.)

"Idealism of vision seems to clash with the realism of circumstance. We who herald the invasion of the power of God into the circumstances of life are prepared to believe He can do anything. But the Bible and the evidence of the contemporary controversy do not warrant our belief that we are about to come up with some new (or recovered) formula which will birth a Body without imperfection.

"I hold that "without spot or wrinkle" shall never be the description of the physical Body of the Church. The imperfections of the first century Church, in the midst of its pristine blessing, are manifestly present. "That which is perfect" has not come, nor will that age until He who makes it possible in the physical realm as He is able to do it in the spiritual.

"The goal of the present revival is, in my view, not to abolish structures, denominations, etc. and create one ideally unified, functional Church — a new catholic Body.

"Rather, the present goal is that "the love of God be poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit", to the end that love cover the multitude of imperfections present in the Body. In Corinth, different "houses" existed, each identified with different major influences. I do not hear Paul denouncing their "denominating" - of Apollos, Paul, Cephas, Christ. I do hear him

Continued on page 26

[26] Vision Magazine, no 12, Nov – Dec 1975

The Shape of the Church to Come

Continued from page 6

deploring their dividing. The heartbeat of the epistle is, of course, chapter 13 which calls to love all the while we await the return of Him who shall establish the age of His perfected rulership.

"Whatever wonders of sanctifying grace we may experience personally, or even corporately in local assemblies, there is no Biblical reason for us to expect the emergence of a "last days, perfected Church" in a visible structure. Our wisdom is to function within that segment of the ecclesiastical structure wherein we find ourselves sovereignly placed. When the Lord of the Church relocates a person in the Body, he should feel free to take his new place -even feeling "liberated", if that verbal description suits his emotional response to the adjusted place Jesus has given him. Let the Independent abide in the state of his calling. Let the Spirit-filled traditionalist dwell peaceably with the "wife" of his denominational relationship as long as she will let him. Let the "discipleship" advocate/enthusiast rejoice in the developments he is experiencing, albeit without yielding to the subtle deception of attempted allegiance to two masters. And let brotherly love continue."

I, too, would hold to such a view, i.e. that God is not about to produce a perfected Church in a visible form. That perfect Church awaits the day of His return when He shall gather up the whole church universal, universal in both space (i.e. from every nation) and time (i.e. throughout all the centuries). There is only one Church and it is that one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that is going to be perfected, not just a last days part of it.

PRACTICAL ADVICE

What does all this mean in practice?

Well, firstly it means that the charismatic renewal needs to have more realistic goals. There has been far too much idealistic and thus, at times, completely unrealistic expectations presented concerning the renewal and restoration of the Church.

Secondly, it means that we need not think of throwing aside the existing Church structures and coming out into some new super church. God is wanting to renew the existing Church, not make a new one. As one writer put it in response to the previous article, "Praise the Lord that He does make all (existing) things new. If we look into our own lives and see His wonderful renewal there, how can we doubt that He will do the same for the Body. I am glad that He didn't cast this old wineskin (me) aside!!"

Thirdly, it means that we need to be getting on with the task, right where we are, in terms of "Corporate Renewal". As stated before, this is the great challenge before us in the Charismatic Renewal, to bring the Renewal into the local churches and parishes.

Finally, let us minister love in truth and truth in love, always "endeavouring to keep the unity of Spirit in the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:3).

In the final article in the next issue I want to examine a previous renewal movement that most closely parallels the present charismatic renewal. There are lessons from this renewal that are most relevant for today that will give us key principles to see where the charismatic movement should be going.

© Southern Cross College, 2003, by permission.