The Church is the biggest enemy of the church

Why it's important to rethink the church

One of the most positive things I saw on Twitter/X over the last few days [I am writing just after the Easter weekend] was the number of people who were going to church on Easter Sunday. It seemed that there was standing room only in many churches — people are really starting to flock back to church in numbers. A week or two ago, the Bible Society released a report entitled ‘Quiet Revival’ — it’s not just anecdotal, the data shows that church attendance is growing for the first time in many years, and it is is being spearheaded by younger people (Gen Z).

At the same time, I am struggling to to welcome this as the good news it is being presented as. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that people are turning to God and coming to church — that does give me real hope. But, at the same time, are people really going to meet with Jesus in many of the traditional churches up and down the country? To give that question a sharper edge: if revival does break out in this country — as I hope and pray that it does — will the institutional church help it or hinder it? I have written before about how people calling ‘revival’ don’t really know what they are speaking about:

Revival: 'be careful what you wish for...'

What I want to do in this piece is develop these thoughts and think through why it is that the church is standing in the way of revival and — as I said in my latest podcast — why it’s important to consider separation from them. I do think there are some real signs of hope, however, and I will finish in a positive note.

Church: Visible vs Invisible

In my last podcast on separation, I mentioned the distinction between the visible and the invisible church. Let’s begin by probing into that distinction a little bit further. To help, we’ll examine the Westminster Confession of Faith, which explains in some detail the distinction between the visible and invisible church:

I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law) consists of all those, throughout the world, that profess the true religion, and of their children; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

XXV. “Of the Church”

They describe the invisible church as being simply the whole number of the ‘elect’ — that is, comprised of all true Christians who have been chosen by God for salvation and united through faith in Christ. However, information about who exactly is a member of the invisible church is ultimately known only to God. By contrast, the visible church is made up of churches throughout the world who profess true Christian belief.

“But”, you might say, “aren’t those two groups one and the same? Why make a distinction?” I believe some churches in fact do explicitly teach that these groups are one and the same — it is my understanding that the Roman Catholic church, for example, does claim this for itself. Unfortunately, however, it is necessary to make a distinction as not all who belong to the visible church are members of the invisible church — it is possible for people to be hypocrites, for example.

Let me quote another couple of paragraphs from the WCF:

IV. This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

V. The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to his will.

The WCF goes on to say that this invisible church is sometimes more or sometimes less visible. It all depends on the purity of the visible church — that is, whether the visible church is preaching the gospel, putting Jesus first, obeying the Word of God, requiring God’s standards of holiness, and so on.

Obviously, in every visible church there will be a mixture of truth and error — not every regular churchgoer will be a genuine Christian, for example. However, it is possible for churches to degenerate to such a degree that they become no longer churches of Christ, but “synagogues of Satan” (drawing on Revelation 2:9).

If you’re a diagram sort of person, it might help to visualise this with a Venn diagram (and who doesn’t love a Venn diagram?):

The WCF is making the point that the degree of overlap will vary throughout history — sometimes more, sometimes less — but in this sinful and fallen world there will never be 100% agreement between both of those two circles.

The background, of course, for all of the thinking here is that of the Reformation: the reformers had to reckon with the fact that something calling itself “the church” on earth was in fact keeping people away from the truth of the gospel and the Scriptures, even to the point of persecuting those such as William Tyndale who were engaged in translating the Scriptures into the vernacular. How could a ‘church’ act … NOT like a church? This is the exact problem that the reformers were confronted with, and what they were trying to articulate as they formulated these views about the visible and the invisible church.

Note: if you are interested in exploring the question of the visible vs invisible church, I found an interesting article by Brian Schwertley which goes into it in more detail.

So, the million dollar question is, then, what stage are we at today? How much overlap is there between the visible and the invisible church — are we at the ‘synagogue of Satan’ stage yet?

Is the visible church close to the invisible?

I will try to be brief in this section because I have already covered these issues several times already. Obviously many mainline denominations today have gone far down the ‘synagogue of Satan’ route, with them embracing the cause of social justice rather than the gospel.

Note: I spoke about this in my podcast from 2023 about whether the Church of England is ‘institutionally Satanist’.

But the problem is far deeper than mainline denominations. There is a deep sickness across the vast majority of the church. I said on Twitter/X the other day:

How many churches closed their doors willingly during covid? Nearly 100% of them. How many of them have since reflected and repented and resolved never to do it again? I can’t think of a single one. I truly believe this one issue sums up every other problem in the visible church at the moment. It’s akin to the shocking moment in John’s Gospel where the chief priests say to Pilate, “We have no King but Caesar” (John 19:15). It’s shocking because it revealed the desperate state of the priests who were so keen to have the Son of God killed that they would even claim to have no king but a secular authority — in direct violation of the Old Testament.

The presenting issue was simply the manifestation of a much deeper problem. That’s how it is with the church today: the church caved in to the government on lockdowns, because there is a much deeper issue. But can we be more specific about those deeper issues?

Lessons from A.W. Tozer

A.W. Tozer, 1897-1963

A few weeks ago, someone commented here that they’d been reading A.W. Tozer’s book Paths to Power. I hadn’t read it before, and I’m always looking out for good books, so I thought I’d get hold of a copy. What I was fascinated by — bearing in mind that the book was published in 1940 — was just how closely it relates to the church today. What I’d like to do is share a few of his insights about the church in his day to explain why I believe there are serious problems in our own.

In every denomination, missionary society, local church, or individual Christian this law operates. God works as long as His people live daringly: He ceases when they no longer need His aid. As soon as we seek protection out of God, we find it to our own undoing. Let us build a safety-wall of endowments, by-laws, prestige, multiplied agencies for the delegation of our duties, and creeping paralysis sets in at once, a paralysis which can only end in death.

Tozer is saying that we must, first and foremost, live by faith. As the Bible says, “the righteous shall live by faith” (Romans 1:17). This means that we must have faith in him and his power rather than in our own abilities. When the church becomes self-sufficient in its own eyes, God stops working. Do you need convincing that this is exactly what has happened in our own day? Churches have become reliant on secular tools and strategies rather than humble dependence upon the power of God, by faith. As Tozer points out, this leads to paralysis and ultimately death.

Near the end of the book, Tozer says of faith:

The trouble seems to be with our conception of faith. Faith, as Paul saw it, was a living, flaming thing leading to surrender and obedience to the commandments of Christ. Faith in our day often means no more than a meek assent to a doctrine.

I think many of the churches who would see themselves as heirs of the Reformation would fall foul of this understanding of faith: they have substituted faith in the Biblical sense for intellectual assent to a set of doctrines. I can see this very much in myself in years past — the churches which I attended were very hot on preaching expository sermons, but those sermons were often more about intellectual apprehension rather than encouraging us to walk by faith. It is possible to search the Scriptures diligently, and yet not find Christ in them (John 5:39-40).

Another lesson from Tozer is that a church which loses sight of the holiness of God will not make disciples of Christ. Let me quote again:

Right after the first World War there broke out an epidemic of popular evangelism with the emphasis upon what was called the “positive” gospel. The catch-words were “believe,” “program,” “vision.” The outlook was wholly objective. Men fulminated against duty, commandments, and what they called scornfully “a decalogue of don’ts.” They talked about a “big,” “lovely” Jesus who had come to help us poor but well-meaning sinners to get the victory. Christ was presented as a powerful but not too particular Answerer of prayer. The message was so presented as to encourage a loaves-and-fishes attitude toward Christ. That part of the New Testament which acts as an incentive to ward holy living was carefully edited out. It was said to be “negative” and was not tolerated. Thousands sought help who had no desire to leave all and follow the Lord. The will of God was interpreted as “Come and get it.” Christ thus became a useful convenience, but His indisputable claim to Lordship over the believer was tacitly cancelled out.

I think there is a striking parallel between this and what is happening in our own day. I can imagine the time after the first World War must have been a very difficult time for people to process what had just happened. In such a context, it must have been tempting simply to avoid preaching about the holiness of God and preaching a “positive” message instead. However, as Tozer says, such a message essentially cancels out Christ’s Lordship over the believer, and opens the door to people coming to church who have no desire to leave everything and follow Him.

I fear that we are potentially facing a similar situation today: would the people who came to church on Easter Sunday — some of them for the first time — have been confronted with a Jesus who is risen and ascended, and who demands that we lay our lives down at his feet? Or would they have met a “powerful but not too particular Answerer of prayer”? I fear that in far too many churches up and down the land, the answer will be the latter rather than the former. (And I have been banging this particular drum for years now).

In summary…

In a nutshell, what I am arguing here is that there is now a substantial difference between the visible and the invisible church. I believe that the visible church has become so corrupt that I don’t think it is possible for it to turn itself round — partly because the leaders of those churches simply can’t see the issues. This is why I was saying last time that separation is so important.

I appreciate that this is a difficult thing to hear. I was talking to someone the other day about this who said to me, “but that means we hardly have fellowship with anyone!” I quite agree. At the same time, we know from history that renewal is possible — BUT we also know that renewal almost always comes from the outside. Think of Luther, or John and Charles Wesley — those who began great movements but who were excluded from the traditional structures. (John Wesley was locked out of CofE pulpits, which is why Methodism began. Now Methodism is another failing institution…)

I hope and pray that God will begin a renewal, revival and reformation in this country and across the world — and that this will change the whole face of the visible church, even if it does not begin there.

Let me finish with a cautiously optimistic note which underscores why I believe this is important.

‘You must be born again’

Over the last month or so, there have been a couple of interesting interviews on the Speak Life YouTube channel. The first was with Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, who recently made public that he had become a Christian. The second was with Jordan Hall, a tech entrepeneur, who has also become a Christian recently.

What really struck me about both of these men was their ability to approach the Bible with fresh eyes. Both of them are smart, thoughtful guys, and they devoured everything they could about the Bible — commentaries, books, videos, everything — trying to understand it. They didn’t simply take the Bible as read, because they thought they knew it already, but they engaged with it at a deep level.

I find this enormously encouraging. We are at the point today where most people barely know the first thing about the Bible. They’ve almost certainly never sat down to read it before, let alone thought deeply about its message and how it fits together, etc. It struck me that we as Christians have an IMMENSE opportunity here: the message of the Bible strikes people today as a breath of fresh air, they are perhaps ready to hear it in a way that they haven’t been for a long time.

At the same time, I think it’s a huge WARNING to us: if people go to many traditional churches, never having read the Bible before, will they end up with a good understanding of the Bible? Once again, I fear that in many churches they will simply not.

This was the exact reason why I started Understand the Bible, as I realised that too many churches were simply not teaching the faith systematically. This is also the exact reason I started Sacred Musings, as I realised that many churches were not helping people to see the connections between the Bible and what’s going on in the world today.

I believe that many churches today, rather than causing people to submit to Jesus as Lord of all, have the opposite effect — a bit like a kind of spiritual anaesthetic. They cause people to go to sleep spiritually. I wrote about this a few months ago, where I said “there is nothing more toxic to people’s faith than an empty institutional church”:

When is a church not a church?

The good news is, I think a lot of people are coming to church searching for Jesus, and have realised that traditional churches are not leading them to him. I hope and pray that those who are truly seeking the Lord will not be put off by the empty display of religion they find in much of the visible church, but will instead be drawn to where the true gospel is preached and the Scriptures are honoured. As Jesus said:

“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.” Matthew 7:7-8

And each one of us can play our part in that by praying for our non-Christian friends and neighbours and helping to lead them to places where they can find true fellowship and Biblical teaching.

If you appreciate Sacred Musings, you can help me out in a few ways: 1. Becoming a subscriber - free or paid; 2. Sharing Sacred Musings on social media or with anyone you think might like it; 3. If you’d like to contribute to help keep this running but becoming a paid subscriber is not the right option for you right now, you can give one-off via PayPal. Thank you so much!