Essay 6 (10-31-03)

WHERE AND WHAT IS THE TRUE CHURCH?

My longtime friend, Robert O. Fife, adjunct professor at Emmanuel School of Religion, served as a chaplain during World War II. He tells of being with the Allied forces in the liberation of Dachau, one of Hitler’s horrendous concentration camps. He says the horror was so striking that the soldiers could talk to each other only in shocked whispers as they gazed upon the scene.

One of the inmates at Dachau was a noted Lutheran minister, Martin Niemoeller, who in spite of years of harsh confinement served as a nurturing pastor to his sick and dying fellow prisoners. The Nazis allowed Niemoeller and a little band of believers to assemble in Cell 34. They were not only from various denominations but they were of different nationalities as well.

The Nazis could hear the little Christian assembly reading the Scriptures (or probably in this case, without a Bible, quoting verses from memory), singing hymns of praise, and praying to the God of heaven. We can wonder if an occasional German soldier – recalling his own Christian heritage – might have joined them. There were such dramatic incidents – Nazis breaking bread with fellow believers amidst all the insane brutality.

Niemoeller was imprisoned for his leadership role in the so-called "Confessing Church" of Germany – an underground movement in opposition to Nazism. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, also a leader in the "Confessing Church," was at this same time ministering in another prison – even smuggling his "Letters from Prison" to the outside world. He was executed shortly before the War ended. Niemoeller was spared to bear witness to what happened at that "outpost of hell" called Dachau.

As Niemoeller afterwards described it, it was the Una Sancta – the one holy church – that assembled in Cell 34 to break bread together, in spite of all the diversity. Even Niemoeller’s own Lutheran brethren questioned if that indeed was the case, and he had to defend his action in his own denomination for being so ecumenical in Cell 34!

Our friend Bob Fife asks us – heirs of the Restoration Movement – if that was indeed the true church in Cell 34. Insofar as he knew none of them was a member of Independent Christian Churches or Churches of Christ. None of them likely read the Christian Standard or the Gospel Advocate. It is probable that none of them had even heard of Cincinnati Bible Seminary or Abilene Christian University. While surely all of them were "baptized" believers -- as they understood that ordinance -- it is probable that most of them were baptized by a mode other than immersion, including Niemoeller himself.

That "little flock" in Cell 34 was not issue oriented -- other than the issue of hope for something better. There were probably no theological debates. There at the edge of hell itself their concern was to strengthen each other through their common faith in Christ. If some were Calvinists and others Armenians – or if some were premill and others amill – it didn’t matter. They were united in their suffering for Christ.

But was that the true church in Cell 34? It had no name. It was no denomination. It had no ecclesiastical affiliations. To its pastor it was simply an assembly of believers in Christ, the Una Sancta.

But was it the true church?

When that inimitable theologian Karl Barth was asked that question – Where is the true church? – his answer was that the true church is wherever the Spirit of Christ is in the hearts of the people.

Does an assembly of believers have to be doctrinally right – however that might be determined – to be a true church? Is it possible for a church to be ever-so-right in doctrine and practice – including being baptized the right way -- and yet not be a true church?

If our concern is that those in Cell 34 were not immersed for the remission of their sins, and were not therefore fully Christian and therefore not a true church, then we have a question to answer, posed by Aristotle long centuries ago – What is the essence of a thing? In this case, what is the essence of a true church? The essence of a thing is that which is absolutely essential to its being – without which it could not be what it is. Aristotle used a knife to illustrate. Its essence is to cut. However pretentious and ornate a knife may be, if it doesn’t cut it is not a true knife.

What might a church not have -- that it usually has – and still be a true church? What must it have – however untoward the circumstance – to be a true church? That is its essence. Hans Kung spoke to this when he said, "Where the church does not realize the cause of Jesus Christ or distorts it, it sins against its being and loses that being."

However important any ordinance may be, whether the Lord’s supper or baptism, it is risky to make it the very essence of salvation and of the church. If baptism by immersion is the essence, the church loses many, if not most, of the great saints of Christian history – not only Bonhoeffer and Niemoeller, but also the likes of Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Huss, Savonarola, Wycliffe, Edwards, Livingstone, Whitfield, and more recently William Barclay, C. S. Lewis, and Mother Teresa. We cannot gainsay the grace of God by our strait-laced interpretations, however well-intentioned. We can be wrong even when we are right.

Our Lord himself names the essence when he said, "Where two or three meet in my name, I am there among them" (Mt. 18:20, New Jerusalem) To meet in his name must mean to assemble in order to honor and worship him.

However bleak the circumstance of a gathering of believers – even in a dreary cell in a Nazi concentration camp – if Christ is there it is a true church. However favorable the circumstance of a gathering of believers – such as an elite assembly in a palatial cathedral – if Christ is not there it is not a true church.

[TOP].