The “Marks of the Church”: Hurtful or Helpful?

Throughout the centuries Christians have defined the church through the “marks of the church.” These marks are things that help one identify a true church.  Perhaps the most popular marks in evangelicalism today are the Reformed marks: 1) the preaching of the Gospel, 2) the administration of the sacraments, and (sometimes) 3) the administration of church discipline. In some ways these marks are helpful, but I’m being challenged, have the Reformed marks of the church actually hurt the church?

The most historic marks of the church are taken from the Nicene Creed: “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.” Although the Reformers accepted these marks through their acceptance of the Nicene Creed, the Reformers had concerns: “they sought to identify specific criteria that could be used to test the validity of what constituted a true church, one that legitimately expressed the four attributes” (Van Gelder, 54). Their desire to identify specific criteria resulted from their perceived abuse of the Roman Catholic Church in identifying itself as the only true church.

As a result, the three Reformed marks of the church made their appearance in many notable Reformed confessions such as: the Augsburg Confession Article VII (Lutheran) and the Belgic Confession Article 29 (Calvinist). Since most evangelicals are from the Protestant tradition, it is no surprise that similar marks find their way into common evangelical affirmations of the church. I must admit that I have traditionally accepted these marks as well.

But recently I’ve been challenged in my view. Specifically, George Hunsberger, a leader in the Gospel and Our Culture Network which spawned the missional church movement, has some devastating critique:

“The churches shaped by the Reformation were left with a view of the church that was not directly intended by the Reformers, but nevertheless resulted from the way that they spoke about church. Those churches came to conceive the church as “a place where certain things happen”…over time, these “marks” narrowed the church’s definition of itself toward a “place where” idea. This understanding was not so much articulated as presumed…This perception of the church gives little attention to the church as a communal entity or presence, and it stresses even less the community’s role as the bearer of missional responsibility throughout the world, both near and far away. “Church” is conceived in this view as the place where a Christianized civilization gathers for worship, and the place where the Christian character of the society is cultivated. Increasingly, this view of the church as a “place where certain things happen” located the church’s self-identity in its organizational forms and its professional class, the clergy who perform the church’s authoritative activities. Popular grammar captures it well: you “go to church” much the same way you might go to a store. You “attend” a church, the way you attend a school or theater. You “belong to a church” as you would a service club with its programs and activities.

Hunsberger goes on to state that this had the effect of negating the missionary character of the church (unless it was missionary endeavors to the “uncivilized” parts of the world). I will add that it creates a consumeristic church: “church is where you go to get preaching, so I’m going to go where I can get the best preaching.”

I think Hunsberger is on to something. North American Christians have failed to view church as community. North American Christians have failed to view church as the people of God. North American Christians have failed to see that church is who we are, not what we do. Because of this, North American Christians have failed to see that mission is who we are, not what we do.

Perhaps the most important place to begin is to help people understand the true character and nature of the church.  We need to help people move from “a place where” to “a people who.”  This may be a long journey, but with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I believe it is possible.