WE are told that we are living in critical times, and especially is this so with regard to the, Church. "The Church is on trial as an institution," say some; and others more boldly assert, "The Church is useless"; and yet again others cry with more zeal than knowledge, "Scrap the Church." But it is no new thing for the Church to be passing through critical times; in fact it is these very difficulties which keep the Church alive and active. No one with any love for the Church should pray for stagnant periods, times of ease and comfort. The Church has nothing to fear from criticism, though she may have much to learn. Neither shall we gain anything by an indifferent or superior attitude to criticism without any serious attempt to meet it. We may be sure that there is something real which lies behind this criticism, and it is this reality we must examine if we are to fulfil our mission to the Church in our own day.

      When we come to more serious criticism of the claim made for the Church as a permanent institution, we are met by a school of thought within circles [21] of modern scholarship, which says that Jesus never intended to found a Church, and that the Church, with her institutions, was a creation of the Apostle Paul. It was therefore a growth entirely out of harmony with the Gospel seed--an accretion, if you will, upon the pure teaching of Jesus, and entirely due to the mistaken views of St. Paul. It will be true to say here that the most fundamental error of this form of criticism is not its failure to read history aright--though this is certainly a very serious error--but its lack of insight into the nature and necessity of the Church, not so much as an organisation, but as a fellowship. However, we may look at the historical side first, returning to the other later. This type of criticism is put forth by those who are saying--and saying very loudly--"Back to Jesus." What is the meaning of this cry? There is a desire to get back to the actual teaching of Jesus Himself on the question; and, as everyone knows, this teaching is primarily enshrined in the Gospels, which came forth at a date subsequent to the Pauline work. Thus it is that these critics say that anything in the Gospels given as a saying of Jesus, which they think could not possibly have been said by Jesus must be deleted as evidence for His intention to found a Church. In another connection Dr. Mellone has recently said of this type of criticism: "Taken as a principle, it will not provide a reconstruction of doctrine; it rests on a basis as arbitrary and unhistorical as textual theology. It consists in a like process of selection . . . Certain acts and sayings are chosen and attributed to the 'real Jesus' for no reason other than the impression they make [22] on the reader; and other acts and sayings are attributed to the mistaken imaginations of His followers."¹ This is all too true, and the tendency of this school has always been to reject what they call the "secondary expressions" of Christ's teaching. But a life is judged by what it does, and this is supremely the case with the life of Jesus. The meaning of His religious life is shown in its results and its first results are seen in these secondary expressions, which make up most of the New Testament.²

      When we examine the records we see at once that the evidence for the intention of Jesus to found a Divine Society is overwhelming. It is true the terms are often those of the Kingdom, but it is no mere political kingdom, such as the Jews expected: "My Kingdom is not of this world."³ The parables are mostly concerned with this Society, and much of the direct teaching points forward to it; most of all that given at Cæsarea Philippi.

      But the more fundamental error in all this attitude is the failure to recognise the true meaning of the Church. The Church is regarded as something quite unnatural; in fact, as something imposed on man and foreign to his nature. And here we must admit that those who have often been the Church's greatest defenders have sometimes lent themselves too readily to this view. They have regarded the Church and her ordinances as given to [23] man as a stumbling-block to try him--given by a God who is ready to wreak vengeance if he refuses to have the burden placed upon him. Thus the Church and her ordinances have been made to appear unlovely, and many have rejoiced in this unloveliness as the one thing essential. All this is the very negation of truth. As to the Church, it meets one of the most fundamental needs of humanity. Everywhere around us we see clubs, factions, parties, societies. What is the meaning of all this? Psychologists would probably tell us that it is due to the exciting and animating effect of feelings upon cognition. Feeling seeks to justify and explain itself, but cannot do so in words. It is driven to express itself in institutions. After the ascension the hundred and twenty were all together with one accord; and after the Baptism of the three thousand how could they help being banded together in one society? As to the idea of St. Paul founding the Church; they could no more have waited for the conversion of Saul to have the Church founded than one single individual could stop the flow of Niagara. The Church was a fellowship, and as a fellowship it was purely natural, adapted to the needs of humanity. As such it remains a permanency so long as the needs of humanity exist. We need not fear for the Church. If it were possible for it to be swept from the face of Christendom to-day, the next generation would rise up and demand it; "The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."⁴

      Only the other day my attention was called to a book written in defence of the position, "Why go to [24] Church at all? Stay at home and read your Bible and pray." But private devotion of this kind, apart from Church worship, can only lead to a pietism which is superior in its attitude to others, and it can never provide that way of service which is the necessity of the Christian life. It is totally inadequate as a conception of Christian living.

      One of the familiar figures of the church in New Testament writings is that of "the Body of Christ." Christ once became incarnate in the flesh, now He is incarnate to the world in His Body the Church. It is in this sense that the Church and the institutions are extensions of the Incarnation. One of the significant incidents in the resurrection is the grief of Mary that someone had taken away His Body. Is it not also true that Christians have very often robbed the world of His Body the Church? We cannot help sympathising with those who, to-day, are repelled by the Church as they find her. Amongst these the most vehement advocates of Church denunciation point to the Church as a drag on the wheel of human progress. "She created the dark ages by her suppression of education and her narrow and intolerant spirit," they say. "She has often arraigned herself on the side of the oppressor, and waged hateful war on the oppressed." "She stands in the way of all reform and is ruled and swayed by the wealthy." This is the kind of thing which is being said daily about the Church; but it is not new. These things have all been said before, and it [25] is our failure to read history aright which makes us accept the situation as entirely new. Moreover, whilst we must not be slow to express sympathy with those who are driven to hold such views, we must insist that the picture is exaggerated and one-sided. After all, there are the marks of His Body clearly visible in the Church of the redeemed. It is true the Church has sometimes been opposed to education, but we are apt to forget that it was the Church which kept aglow the spark of learning during the dark ages, and that until a century ago practically every educational institution in this country was the work of the Church. It is true she has sometimes stood in the way of legitimate reform, but what shall we say of the reforms she has accomplished? It was one thing to capture the cultured dominions of Rome and to wipe out fornication, murder, and idolatry in large tracts of country; it was another to subdue uncivilised Goths; but both demanded the power of a living Gospel enshrined in a living institution. And are there no marks in our own day? Is it no mark of Him who suffered, that men and women have given their all, even their lives, to serve the millions of China and India and the oppressed of Africa?

      Such must the Church be if we would make her live again to our own generation--an institution for fellowship and service, meeting the deepest needs of human nature. Such has she been in every age, when thousands have thronged to her Baptism, [26] and there found the satisfaction of a need not to be expressed in words; when conscious of an individual pardon they have assembled with the fellowship company to worship their God through Christ. No vulgar noise was there, but a solemn hush of reverence; no obtrusive pulpit met their gaze, but the symbols of His passion; no sermon, however eloquent was the object of their assembly; but the "fellowship of kindred souls in Christ," and Christ was there in real presence, and so their deepest needs were met and their deepest feelings found adequate expression. [27]

[EOCU 21-27]