| A number of people are reacting to this statement in the book -- "the church, in its contemporary, institutional form, has neither a biblical nor a historical right to exist." What did you mean by that exactly?
Answer. This statement appears in the Advanced Reader Copy of the book which went out to reviewers and magazines. The published edition (hardback) which was printed a few weeks afterwards and sent to bookstores phrases it this way:
We are also making an outrageous proposal: that the church in its contemporary, institutional form has neither a biblical nor a historical right to function as it does. This proposal, of course, is our conviction based on the historical evidence that we shall present in the book. You must decided if that proposal is valid or not. (page xx)
Note the words we use are "biblical or historical right." That simply means that what we are calling "the institutional church" (the book defines this) has no "biblical" merit or justification. And historically, it can be demonstrated that the church in its present form didn't originate with God, but from human inventions and traditions. (This is what we give historical evidence for in the book.)
This doesn't mean the church in its present form is evil, bad, sinful, or useless. Nor does it mean that God hasn't and isn't using it, despite its shortcomings. It simply means that the institutional form we're speaking of has no "Scriptural basis." And as we argue in the book, many of its features actually contradict the teachings of Scripture.
Let me offer an example. Suppose that someone in our time began to say, "We need to change the way we have the Lord's Supper. From now on, we're going to replace the fruit of the vine with Dr. Pepper and the bread with french fries. (All those between the ages of six and ten break out into applause.) And instead of remembering Jesus Christ and His death/resurrection, we're going to remember David's victory over Goliath.
Now suppose this idea catches on. And after three hundred years, it's essentially the universal way that Christians take the Lord's Supper (Eucharist). It goes unchallenged and unquestioned. In fact, most Christians can't conceived of taking the Lord's Supper any other way.
Is there anything morally wrong with drinking Dr. Pepper or eating french fries (not counting the opinion of some nutritionists!). I'd say no. Is there anything wrong with remembering and celebrating David's victory over Goliath? I'd say no. But, I would argue that the original meaning and intention that Jesus Christ and the apostles gave to us ("handed down") regarding the Lord's Supper has been utterly changed and emptied of it's original meaning. And whatever the Lord's Supper was originally supposed to embody in the mind of God has been lost. Thus, to my thinking, taking the Lord's Supper in this new fashion has no Biblical merit. Or to put it differently, in this particular form "it doesn't have a Scriptural or historical right to function as it does."
In like manner, we are saying that the modern, inherited, institutional form of church has strayed far, far afield from the New Testament concept of "church" in the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. And we are asking the question: should we keep supporting this inherited form or should we begin to do things differently?
No doubt, there's a better way of phrasing that sentence; but it seemed to make sense to us at the time.
I hope that helps. |