Part 2 of a Critique of the Cultural Apologetic for Church in The Reason for Church Book

All Scripture quotations are taken from the New American Standard Bible 1995 Ed. (NASB95)

Among evangelical elites, there’s been a promotion of what’s called ”cultural apologetics”. This is the endeavor to show how western culture’s secular values both echo elements of truth about the ultimate questions, and fall short of satisfying the longing for their answers. Those who have been pushing this method of Christian defense, chiefly among The Gospel Coalition (TGC), have also taken it to some questionable applications. The main thing that has been problematic about this fascination with understanding and critiquing western values is a tendency to be “culturally relevant” and appealing to secular thought leaders. Above all, the thing that is most troublesome is a movement to present an “apologetic” for the “church,” or body of Christ.

The most prominent effort to “argue for” the church is a book published late last year called The Reason for Church. In this book, Brad Edwards tries to dismantle several western beliefs that argue against the necessity of participating in Christian churches, and then explains several main characteristics of Christ’s body. However helpful much of this is, Edwards fails to present a biblical “reason for church” in a biblically framed way. Instead, he adds unbiblical functions to the main goals of local fellowships, and in so doing misrepresents the biblical functioning of Christ’s Assembly to the world.

In the last article, we looked at several quotations in which Edwards expresses his belief that the gathered fellowship of localized saints is just as much for non-Christians as for Christians. He recounts the founding of the church he pastors by highlighting the participation of an atheist in that work. Also, he repeatedly suggests that believers ought to be eager to invite unbelievers to their assembly. In his arguments, he at least implies that one of the expected purposes of local fellowships is to be a means for unbelieving spectators to gradually be persuaded of the truth of the gospel.

For most western Christians, this is a normal way of thinking about the Assembly. One of the most commonly taught methods of sharing the gospel is simply “invite them to church”. And doubtless, many unbelievers have been converted through the use of the teaching and example of the local fellowship. But does the New Testament present this as one of the missions of Christian assemblies? Should we be focused on attracting unbelievers to enter our midst, and hear what we’re teaching and singing?

As I’ve already noted, Edwards’ view of the Assembly is seemingly contradictory. On the one hand, he repudiates the “seeker-sensitive” model of local fellowships, while on the other hand, he presents a style of church which is just as seeker-sensitive, yet more subtle. Without knowing everything about his ministry and discipleship philosophy, it seems that he holds to a very formal and liturgical method of having church services. He claims to hold to the Westminster Presbyterian Confession and Catechism, and to teach based on them. Yet, he’s more than open to the possibility of unbelievers being participants in the church’s life, without the possession of church “membership”.

And this view of Christ’s body sets up the very purpose of his book. He asserts in the beginning that the book is an “apologetic,” or defense, for the usefulness of the local Christian assembly. And his target audience for the book is not just Christians, but unbelievers as well. But this raises this question – does the body of Christ even need a defense before the world? I’m convinced that the Scriptures testify that the Assembly needs no elaborate argument. The only argument for Christ’s body to the world is the gospel itself.

Why We Don’t Need to Persuade Unbelievers to Join an Assembly

One of the few big mistakes The Reason for Church makes is to advocate for the persuasion of non-Christians to join the fellowship of Christ’s body. But to any biblically informed Christian, this should be immediately recognized as ridiculous. The reason is in the identity of the local fellowship.

What are biblical churches? They are localized communities of “the household of God,” “the temple of God,” and “the body of Christ.” You cannot become a part of something that you’re inwardly opposed to. And Scripture teaches that there’s no fundamental commonality between Christian and non-Christian, save their human nature.

Paul explicitly forbids the union of Christians and non-Christians in spiritual pursuits in 2 Corinthians 6:14:

“Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship ahs light with darkness?”

These words couldn’t be clearer – believers and unbelievers possess two diametrically opposed identities and destinies. Christians are devoted servants of the Lord Jesus, while non-Christians are devoted rebels against Him, who serve their lord Satan. Thus, it’s impossible for unbelievers to participate in the life of Christ’s people, as their purposes and affections are contrary to those of Christians.

But the second reason arguing for non-Christians to join churches is groundless is that the direct purposes of the gathered fellowship is aimed at its believing members. In one of my favorite passages on Christ’s body, Paul describes what should happen when a fellowship gathers in these words:

“And He gave some . . . evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ . . .” – Eph. 4:11-12

Notice in this description that assemblies meet together for the equipping of the saints. There’s no equipping of unholy people intended in the weekly meeting of the saints in a given area. That’s because the community that gathers with “pastors and teachers” leading it is “the body of Christ,” which only consists of believers in Him. And the main purpose for our gathering is that we be “built up” into a greater likeness to the Lord.

When we look for biblical examples of, and encouragements for, the inclusion of unbelievers into the local fellowship, there’s only one clear one. And this is a hypothetical that serves to reinforce the truth that the weekly assembly is meant for the direct benefit of believers alone. Paul explains how observing the service of a local fellowship should affect a non-Christian like this:

“But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.” – 1 Cor. 14:24-25

This is a far cry from the idea that non-Christians should feel comfortable and at home when among the Christian assembly. They should rather feel as uncomfortable as possible, and recognize that they are in opposition to the Christian’s God.

The greatest Scriptural example of the purpose for the weekly gathered saints also precludes the appropriateness of unbelievers participating. Paul also writes in 1 Corinthians about the central activity of the New Testament assemblies in this passage:

“For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it . . . Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper . . .” – 1 Cor. 11:18, 19

What this teaches us about the focus of the early Assembly’s meetings is made clearer by what Luke writes in Acts 20:7:

“On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.”

What is this “breaking bread” that these Christians did on “the first day of the week,” on which Jesus rose from the dead? When we also consider the extra-biblical information about the 1st century assemblies, it’s clear that this “breaking of bread” was the same “Lord’s Supper” for which the Corinthians came together “as a church.” In other words, the main event of the biblical assembly’s meeting was the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. And Paul also elaborates that partaking in the Lord’s Supper is a spiritual participation in the body of Christ, and in the blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10). But only believers can do this, as faith is necessary to gain any benefit from this remembrance meal.

It’s no wonder, then, that the Romans looked with disgusted suspicion on the meetings of 1st century believers. Most of their meetings were reserved for those who professed the faith and their children, and none else. This wasn’t merely a security measure, or due to preference. They understood that the local fellowship of saints exercised through the weekly meeting is primarily, and almost exclusively, for the participation of the saints. It’s a family gathering, not a public, or civic, one.

 But all that’s been said fails to explain why the body of Christ needs no argument other than the gospel.