Introduction
“I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.”
Affirmation after affirmation rolls off the tongue in the triumphant crescendo of syllables that concludes the Apostles’ Creed. In Protestant printings of this text, a footnote or parenthetical statement jarringly interjects to assure readers that “catholic” doesn’t actually mean “Catholic,” but in fact carries an earlier meaning of the adjective: “universal.” In light of the earnest impulse to preclude possible misunderstanding of the term “catholic,” it is interesting that the following phrase “the communion of saints” then passes without prompting a similar rush to explanation. Yet doesn’t “the communion of saints” also deserve a moment’s reflection on its meaning? What should one believe when professing this kind of conviction, and what difference does it make?
Background of “On the Communion of Saints” in the Second London Baptist Confession
The First London Baptist Confession of Faith (1644), Article 34, simply states that “all men” ought to come into the church “to have communion here with the Saints.” The confession does not further develop the concept of this communion nor specify the identity of these “saints,” other than perhaps paralleling “saints” with “believers” in Article 31.[1]
In contrast, within the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) appear the two paragraphs of Chapter 27, titled “On the Communion of Saints.”[2] The text weaves together elements from both the Westminster Confession (1647)[3] and the Savoy Declaration (1658)[4] treatments of the topic, for the most part accepting Savoy Declaration edits but retrieving from the Westminster Confession a closing defense of the concept of private property.
A literary composite, “On the Communion of Saints” in the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith adheres closely to its sources. That said, appropriation of that source material into a Baptist context frees the text from its prior denominational commitments. For Baptists, the value of the Confession’s treatment of the communion of saints lies in the degree to which it reflects the theology of the Bible.
Biblical Theology within the Chapter
Scripture passages cited in paragraph 1 include some of the biblical foundations of the doctrine of union with Christ, in that Christ is the head of his body, the church. The Spirit works upon those who are within the body, whose old selves have experienced crucifixion and are now dead. These renewed people receive Christ’s grace and experience fellowship with each other, as well as with God the Father and the Son. This fellowship among the “saints” is dynamic, involving encouragement, admonishment, and sacrifice for each other’s sake.
Paragraph 2 builds upon themes from Paragraph 1, explicitly stating what might have otherwise remained implicit. For example, the Confession first cites the exhortation in the book of Hebrews to meet together for mutual edification: a surprisingly fresh and convicting word from the Lord for the present day. This edifying relationship begins in the family and extends to the church, exemplified in Paul’s well-known “body parts” analogy in 1 Corinthians 12:14-27. As mentioned previously, it seems that the framers of the Confession felt burdened to specify that the generosity one exhibits toward others flows from retaining personal property rights rather than surrendering them to the community. Whatever prevailing conditions may have prompted emphasis on this point in 17th century England, contemporary readers would do well to remember that the question at hand was whether to hand over one’s property to the community of faith, not to civil government.
Observations on the Chapter
Regarding both paragraphs of Chapter 27 taken together, at least three observations seem appropriate. First, the Chapter is rather short. This brevity could lead to a misperception that its content is perfunctory: confessionally necessary perhaps, but not of primary concern. Yet since the Chapter clearly touches upon ecclesiology—the doctrine of the church—, lack of length need not signal insignificance. In fact, since the theological currents of our contemporary era seem to throw the nature of the church into open question, it would be especially helpful for present-day Christians to pay attention to Chapter 27.
Second, the scriptural basis of the Chapter does not directly draw from the Old Testament. In truth, limited interaction with the Old Testament is characteristic not only of the rest of the Confession but also of most Christian statements of faith. Yet since no domain of Christian thinking should suffer lack of influence from the full counsel of God, the present study aspires to thrust the roots of the Confession’s ecclesiology even deeper into biblical revelation than the Confession roots itself.
Third, the Chapter characterizes what the “communion of saints” should be like without defining either “communion” or “saints.” If all believers were to share a common understanding of these terms, such definitions would be unnecessary. However, it would be difficult to argue that agreement on the meaning of the “communion of saints” prevails even within single churches, let alone broadly among all Christians. So let’s examine what we can learn from Scripture about the “communion of saints.”
Saints
The expression “the communion of saints” does not appear in the Bible, though the main terms koinonia (fellowship, or “communion”) and hagios = (holy, or “saint” when used as a noun) each appear frequently in the New Testament.[5] Since we are interested in the “communion” that “saints” experience, it is helpful at the outset to identify these “saints.”
First, we should note that New Testament “saints” are not an especially holy caste, set apart from other believers. Instead, “saint” appears to refer to believers generally, as in Romans 1:7: “To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” “Saint” can refer to both the living and the dead. As for deceased saints, there is no support in the Bible for church traditions that following their deaths, saints begin functioning as otherworldly mediators standing between humanity and God, whose intercession adds merit to the prayers of believers who are still living.
The normal grammatical gender of “saint” in New Testament Greek is masculine, but this is a matter of grammar and not sex. Enoch exclaims in Jude 14, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones.” Here the “holy ones” word (which is the “saints” word) is feminine, but only because “ten thousands” is without exception grammatically feminine in Biblical Greek. In the one Scripture passage in which the reader might suspect that there is a male-specific use of “saint,” Acts 9:41, the “saints” and the “widows” are indeed two distinct groups. However, this is only because these widows had been the specific group of women inside a house in verse 39, whom Peter in verse 40 then sent outside with everyone else.
At first glance it might be tempting to view the New Testament’s use of “saint” to refer to all male and female believers as a desacralization of the word, a pulling down of a lofty term to a common level, a divesting of special meaning. In other words, if everyone in the church is a “saint,” then the word seems to lose its uniqueness and become merely a synonym for a Christian brother or sister. However, Old Testament use of a related term suggests that there may actually be a theological motive behind New Testament authors choosing to call believers “saints.”
In Leviticus 11:44–45, all Israelites received the command to be holy (qadosh), because God himself is holy.[6] However, there are only three Old Testament passages that go on to use that Hebrew “holiness” term for people as a noun, two of which are in the Psalms: Psalm 16:3, “As for the saints in the land, they are the excellent ones, in whom is all my delight,” and Psalm 34:9, “Oh, fear the Lord, you his saints, for those who fear him have no lack!” Yet there seems to be a certain hesitation to apply the adjective that describes God’s very nature to his people, for other “saint” passages in the Psalms use a word communicating devotion (ḥasid) rather than holiness.
Then in the apocalyptic visions of the book of Daniel appears the only other use of qadosh as a noun for people, and that Hebrew word in Daniel 8:24 follows six rapid-fire appearances of the Aramaic cognate qadish in only five verses in Daniel 7. These “saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever” (Daniel 7:18). Tracing this eternal kingdom backward in time, in Daniel’s vision this is the kingdom already given to the one “like a son of man” who came “with the clouds of heaven” and was presented before the Ancient of Days, seated on his heavenly throne (Daniel 7:13). Further back in the book of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar’s post-madness confession revealed that this everlasting kingdom belongs to the Most High God (Daniel 4:3, 34).
Therefore, moving forward again through the logic of Daniel 7, the Most High God gives his kingdom to the one “like a son of man,” who receives the worship of all peoples (Daniel 7:14). Then the “saints of the Most High” receive the kingdom, apparently after an eschatological judgment (Daniel 7:27). However, this “receiving” of the kingdom is not a transfer of lordship, because the Most High still receives worship at the end of the vision. These “saints” do not somehow meld with the Most High to become one being with him (nor with the one “like a son of man”), nor do they usurp the Most High’s rule. Even so, there is some kind of significant sharing of the Most High’s kingdom, without fine delineation of everything that sharing entails.
At the time of the writing of Daniel 7, its visionary events were in the far future. However, in the Gospels, Jesus (with a roundabout, third person manner of speaking) explicitly identifies himself as the Son of Man, and furthermore as one who comes on “the clouds of heaven” in Mark 13:26 (also Matthew 24:30) and Mark 14:62 (also Matthew 26:64). Additionally, John’s vision in Revelation 1:7 more directly states that Jesus “is coming with the clouds.” From a biblical theology standpoint, the “Son of Man” in the New Testament is the one “like a son of man,” and likewise the “saints” in the New Testament correspond to the “saints” in Daniel 7.
Keeping these Old Testament theological roots in mind, it is possible that the New Testament practice of referring to all believers as “saints” conveys both present and future implications for the church. As for the present, by virtue of being categorically called holy as “saints,” through Christ, believers are holy in a way that ancient Israel was not. As for the future, the “saints” as God’s holy people will indeed inherit the kingdom of God. In tension with this blessed hope, then, are the New Testament’s warnings about those who will not in fact inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9–10, 15:50; Galatians 5:19–21). Simply put, they are not among the saints.
Communion
Koinonia refers to an exceedingly close relationship characterized by action in a spirit of unity, frequently entailing partnership in activities and mutual sharing. This strong mutuality of koinonia clarifies the interpretation of Philemon 6, which the ESV renders “And I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective for the full knowledge of every good thing that is in us for the sake of Christ.” Contrary to the plain English reading of the sentence, Paul does not express a general wish that Philemon’s evangelistic efforts (Philemon’s “sharing” of his faith) may become more effective. Instead, the “sharing” here is koinonia. Paul prays that Philemon will actively live out his faith in tight connection with Paul and other Christians. This “sharing” fellowship newly includes the runaway slave Onesimus, whom Paul calls a “beloved brother” in Philemon 16. No wonder that the former master and slave relationship had to change drastically, for Philemon and Onesimus should henceforth live in koinonia!
Interestingly, while mental images that spring from the English word “fellowship” typically consist of people warmly interacting with each other in the same place, the bond of believers in the physically dispersed body of Christ could generate significant acts of partnership and sharing across long distances. For example, Romans 15:26 mentions that believers in Macedonia and Achaia “have been pleased to make some contribution for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem,” in which the “contribution” is itself koinonia.[7] Among the members of these churches in Greece there need not have been a single personal connection to Jerusalem, but they were in fellowship with the church in Jerusalem nonetheless.
Koinonia was such a lived reality for the early church that New Testament authors freely used this term to describe believers’ relationship with God. Christians enjoyed koinonia with God (1 John 1:6), the Father and the Son (1 John 1:3), the Son (1 Corinthians 1:9, 10:16; Philippians 3:10), and the Spirit (2 Corinthians 13:14, Philippians 2:1). If believers experience such comprehensive fellowship with every member of the triune Godhead and with each other, it is little wonder that Paul would express thankfulness for “koinonia in the gospel” with fellow believers (Philippians 1:5).
With this biblical sense of the deep mutual interconnectedness of koinonia in mind, it is understandable that the framers of the Second London Baptist Confession would want to affirm in paragraph 1 that union with Christ does not entail merging with him into a shared state of personhood, which would unavoidably entail believers’ participation in deity along with Christ the God-man. This same distinction between the “saints” and God pertains in Daniel 7, although describing the God-human relationship with the special term koinonia would need to wait for New Testament revelation.
The Communion of Saints for Today
The “communion of saints” is a doctrine in need of recovery in the contemporary church. In Western cultural settings, the church must continually contend with fragmentation incited by exaggerated individualism. Rugged individualists have little interest in continual engagement with other saints to “promote their mutual good” by extending their sharing “to the whole household of faith” (using terms from the Confession). After all, the depth of relationship entailed by the communion of saints is uncomfortably demanding of time and other resources. As for discomfort, the isolated saint may simply think it unreasonable to try to have communion with some other saint when he or she doesn’t even like that person.
Unfortunately, recovery of the “communion of saints” in the contemporary church requires more than a cultural shift among the saints in general. The leadership and management structure of most churches itself resists the full engagement of every church member in the life of Christ’s body. Generally speaking, ministers do ministry, and congregants receive ministry, whatever system of church polity is in place. If congregations were to shift toward a more active posture of ministry engagement for all without changing expectations of what leaders do accordingly, the leaders would rapidly burn themselves out in the attempt to lead in the same programmatic ways they had before.
In addition, a relatively new enemy of the communion of saints is many churches’ passivity or even abandonment of ministry in an age of virtualization. The model of “body life” encapsulated in the concept of the communion of saints requires a high degree of investment of one’s self in others as a gathered, functioning community. Real fellowship entails sacrifice, relational vulnerability, and thus toleration and management of risk. Regrettably, many churches essentially decline to take risks of any kind, and their primary “ministry” has become narrating briefing slides to miniature, grainy images of half-dressed saints against virtual backgrounds. At best, whatever unfolds on the screen before them commands a fraction of their attention as they crouch over electronic devices in isolation.
All told, the lack of spiritual vitality in many contemporary churches is depressingly palpable. Turning around this lamentable situation is certainly not a matter of simply placing greater emphasis on certain theological themes, even the often professed but increasingly seldom believed doctrine of the “communion of saints.” In contrast, what the church needs to do is to repent and believe the gospel. This is because the gospel brings about not a mere change of attitude, but a re-creation, a new creation.
In the new covenant community, all of the redeemed are saints, and all receive the commission to serve. Obedience to Jesus’s commands takes place most naturally through full participation in the body of Christ and the sharing of its burdens, not merely knowing the “right answers” to theological questions. Indeed, “If we say we have fellowship with him (God) while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.” (1 John 1:6–7) May the contemporary church rediscover the thoroughgoing communion that saints are to enjoy with each other and with God, and may the resulting revolution of sacred love within the body of Christ fuel the revival we pray that the Spirit would begin in us.

[1] W. J. McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1911), 183–184.
[2] Ibid., 268–269.
[3] Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes, Vol. 3: The Evangelical Protestant Creeds, with Translations, 4th rev. ed. (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1919), 659–660.
[4] Williston Walker, The Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1893), 396–397.
[5] The only biblical passage in which these two words appear close together is the final verse of 2 Corinthians as Paul writes “may . . . the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”
[6] Peter later cites this passage and applies the same logic to Christians in 1 Peter 1:14–16; their conduct should reflect God’s holiness.
[7] See the similar use of koinonia in the sense of “contribution” in 2 Corinthians 8:4 and 9:13.

Tweet Share

Summary Discussion of Paragraphs 7-9 and 11-13 of Chapter 26 of the 1689 Confession.

Paragraph seven of chapter 26 highlights the independence and spiritual-giftedness of every local congregation—”To each of these churches.” Each has been given “power and authority” for executing biblically required worship and discipline. They need no interference from outside on matters of discipline, though they may request wisdom from other congregations (paragraphs 14, 15). Nor is their worship mandated from an outside source of human generation such as The Book of Common Prayer. The local congregation may carry out fully the elements of church life as required by Scripture. Every member of the body is gifted for particular functions within the body and “as each part does its work” the entire body is edified (Ephesians 4: 16).
These local congregations, when organized in a fully scriptural manner “according to the mind of Christ” will be constituted by members and officers (8). Members already have been described in paragraph 6 as “Saints by calling” who evidence their desire for holiness of life, fellowship with other believers and submission to the intent of the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper (described in chapters 28-30). All believers should see membership in a local body as a spiritual privilege and duty (12). Being admitted to the privileges of worship granted to the church by Christ himself, everyone who embraces membership also commits to be under the instruction, censure, and government of the church executed “according to the Rule of Christ.”
Two kinds of discipline will characterize a healthy New Testament congregation. The first is formative discipline. Each member will receive regular instruction from called and qualified teachers—normally, but not limited to, elders—in sermons preached to the whole congregation in corporate worship. In addition, special times of instruction in smaller groups may occur in ways consistent with the needs of various segments of the church’s membership “which are to be ordered according to the light of nature, and Christina prudence according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed” (I. 6). Formative Discipline is the most common kind employed by the church in accordance with apostolic principle. It includes prayer, worship, giving, taking the ordinances, reading the Scripture, and learning how to detect and mortify the jealous struggles of the flesh against the working of the Spirit and truth. Paul wrote frequently to give encouragement and substantial teaching in this process of formative discipline. To the Colossians, a church that he had not visited as yet, he instructed, “Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving” (Colossians 2: 6). As he continued, Paul wrote, making specific applications of doctrine: “Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive” (Colossians 3: 12, 13). At the end of the letter Paul insisted, “And when this letter has been read among you, have it read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea. And say to Archippus, ‘See that you fulfill the ministry that you have received in the Lord’” (Colossians 4: 16, 17). Such kinds of insistent apostolically-generated instruction could be multiplied greatly. This instruction, the ethical and practical application of doctrinal truth, gives godly formation to the attitudes and actions of Christians. Rescued from the power of darkness, we must now be transformed by the power of the word, the renewing of the mind, in order to be able to test and prove the will of God for a life of worship and obedience. This is formative discipline.
A second type of discipline is corrective discipline. Its first manifestation deals with private offenses that might escalate into the necessity of discipline of a more public nature. The confession refers to 1 Thessalonians 5:14 and 2 Thessalonians 3: 6, 14, 15. Both sternness and gentleness befit pastoral involvement: “Warn those who are unruly, comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak, be patient with all.”  These Scriptures highlight the importance of apostolic teaching in saying, “But we command you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks not according to the tradition which he received from us.” Also, Paul reminded the church, “And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed.” Both in conduct and in belief the apostolic practice and word was to govern the congregations established under apostolic missionary labors.
In cases of private offense, the rule of Matthew 18: 15-17 is to be followed. If an understanding and restoration of confidence, trust, and fellowship is achieved in the private meeting, nothing further needs to be done. If such resolution cannot be reached, it then becomes a church matter. In such a case, the person who initiated the attempt at resolution should not “disturb church order, or absent themselves from” church attendance or partaking of the ordinances. They must wait patiently on the will of Christ as executed through the “further proceeding of the church” (13). There are times when difficult circumstances in a local congregation can be aided by consultation with another congregation of like faith and order, but the final policy and action in all such cases is a matter of the authority of the local congregation itself. [Tom Hicks dealt with this in his discussion of paragraphs 14 and 15 in another issue of the Founders Journal]. Each congregation must test all counsel and advice in light of the word of God as it speaks to the particular situation under consideration.
Within the church, God has given some of whom is required the “peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power, or duty” (8). The leadership in the use of means for both formative and corrective discipline falls largely on the shoulders of those so gifted. The members of each congregation search out and call those who have been gifted as officers. The two officers of the church are bishops and deacons. These offices, “appointed by Christ,” are to execute their duties in the church, for the benefit of God’s people and the glory of God, continuing in them “to the end of the world” (8). The common suffrage in electing these officers also is extended to the practice of corrective discipline, a “punishment by the majority” (2 Corinthians 2: 6). Though elders and deacons lead, the final application of discipline is to be done “when you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus,” at which time they are to “purge the evil person from among you.” Disciplinable offenses are listed by the apostle: “anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler.” The purpose of the discipline is reclamation in light of the coming final judgment (1 Corinthians 5: 4, 5, 15). The purpose and prayer in such cases is for repentance and exuberant restoration so that the disciplined person will not be “overwhelmed by excessive sorrow.” The church is to “reaffirm your love for him,” “to turn to forgive and comfort” such a one (2 Corinthians 2: 6-8).
These officers are set apart by the church. While the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are given to every member, the “laying on of hands” is reserved for those biblically-mandated and qualified leaders of the congregation—“fitted and gifted by the Holy Spirit.” The words bishop, elder, and shepherd all designate a single office from different perspectives of function and character. The Savoy Platform of Polity lists “Pastors, Teachers, Elders” as separate offices. The Baptists, who depended on this statement of polity for much of their wording departed from the Congregationalists at this point.  The elder so qualified is “chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself” (9). This is a solemn, soul-shaping congregational responsibility and so should be accompanied “by fasting and prayer.” When elders are tested and elected, they are set apart for the service by laying on of hands. The confession references 1 Timothy 4: 14: “Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership.”
Although God may not call them as elders to exercise authority over the flock, he gives ability and unction of proclamation to others. Both Stephen and Phillip, two of the first deacons, were gifted as preachers and evangelists and God pressed them into service. The confession points to the scattering of the church after the persecution that arose over Stephen. At that time, those who were scattered were “preaching the word to no one but the Jews only.” Others went to Antioch and engaged the Hellenists “preaching the Lord Jesus.” God blessed the effort “and a great number believed and turned to the Lord” (Acts 11: 19-21). Considering this phenomenon, the writers of the confession said, “Yet the work of preaching the word is not so peculiarly confined to them; but that others also gifted, and fitted by the Holy Spirit for it, and approved, and called by the Church, may and ought to perform it” (11).
Christ has provided for his churches all that is needed for their knowledge of his word and their conformity to his image. The functioning of the church in accordance with the loving regulations given in Scripture under the guidance of the officers that he has set in place will cause us to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”  “Christ also loved the church and gave himself for her, that he might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that he might present her to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such things but that she should be holy and without blemish” (Ephesians 5: 25-27).

Tweet Share

The last edition of the Founders Journal gave exposition to paragraphs 1-6, 10 and 14, 15 of chapter 26, “Of the Church,” of the Second London Confession. This edition will complete our commentary on that chapter. Also, it will include commentary on chapters 27-30 on the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
The editor has given attention to paragraphs 7-9 and 11-13 of Chapter 26 to bring to an end our exposition of that lengthy chapter. The two-fold provision of officers for the church designated by Christ, elders and deacons, are discussed. Also, he has discussed the issues of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as presented in chapters 28 – 30. These articles complete the confession’s statement on the distinctive ecclesiological marks of Baptist theology.
Scott Callaham has written an excellent piece on chapter 27, “On the Communion of Saints.” This is a strikingly thorough discussion, a virtual biblical theology, of that rich biblical idea. He brings to bear a comprehensive grasp of the distinctives as well as the unity of the Old and New Testaments, an excellent competency in the biblical languages, and a love for doctrine that arises from careful exegesis. This is an encouraging and spiritually edifying look at the blessing that God has given in our fellowship and union in the gospel.
Complementing these studies, Jeff Robinson provides a book review of Pastors and Their Critics: A Guide to Coping with Criticism in the Ministry (P&R, 2020) by Joel R. Beeke and Nick Thompson. Jeff brings together several qualifications in evaluating this book on pastoral ministry. He has been and is a pastor,  experiencing week by week some of the very issues dealt with in this book. He is a reader on this subject and has brought to bear his broad knowledge of this genre of pastoral theology in making his evaluations. He is a writer—I mean, more than an occasional article or book idea, but a day-by-day producer of usable material for a wide range of readers. He does this as a job, but more importantly, as a conscientious steward of the written word, a theological commitment to the perpetuity of truth through the written word.
The Lord Jesus built his church on the Father-determined, Spirit-wrought confession that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God. On this confession the gates of hell which enclose the whole world will be made to tremble as God’s power will bring to naught its ability to keep incarcerated even one of God’s elect. Christ himself is the church’s one foundation, its cornerstone, and his redemptive work provides its confession of truth. Christ died for his church and will bring it to himself as a bride—unspoiled, unspotted, unwrinkled, unblemished—on that day when sinless eternity begins in the presence of the one true God. We pray that this Founders Journal will help grow biblically-founded conviction of the importance of maintaining faithfulness to the purpose of Christ set forth when the Father “put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all’ (Ephesians 1: 22,  23).

Tweet Share

During the sixteenth century, German monk Martin Luther (1483–1546) stood against the authority of the Church of Rome and the pope by elevating the Word of Christ above every other authority. The Roman Catholic Church viewed itself as deter­minative over the Bible and its message. It was Luther’s redis­covery of the centrality of Christ’s righteousness in the written Word that launched a gospel reformation and revival throughout Europe and essentially threw off the shackles of Rome’s control over the Word of God.
Similarly, the global evangelical church of the twenty-first century has seemingly slipped into a self-made trap of heeding popular social ideas to interpret and apply Scripture relevantly and respectably. As Christians once languished under the theo­logical captivity of popes and councils, so we now also struggle under the pressure of our cultural captivity. We grow weary of aping the latest talking points, attempting to make the gospel fit every cultural nuance, and relinquishing theological priority and prominence to each person’s unique standpoint. These are not merely neutral cultural communication techniques for con­textualizing the gospel. This repackaging of the gospel based on identity, intersectionality, and standpoint is the effect of a brave new religion. It blurs the transcultural distinctiveness of the faith once for all delivered to the saints.
The centrality of a guilt/righteousness para­digm is the standard key to unlocking the gospel for the world’s macro cultural value paradigms of shame/honor, fear/peace, bondage/free­dom, and weakness/strength. Trust alone receives Christ Himself and His benefits/blessings secured by His righteousness and atonement. Those gospel benefits/blessings are the true substance of the patterns of God’s image valued in some cultural orientations. The exchanges of Christ’s righteousness and His benefits/blessings for our unrighteous­ness and curse depend on His substitution and imputation.
The biblical gospel neither adapts nor adopts the imperfect meaning of the world’s value systems. Rather, with transcendent truth, the Bible reinterprets and fills up what is biblically defined as honor, peace, freedom, and strength, bringing clarity to them in the light of the lordship of Christ. The transcultural Word of God brings cohesion and meaning to those cultural value systems by showing how the benefits/blessings of Christ’s work depend on the redemptive center of His work: penal substitutionary atonement, the imputation of His righteousness, adoption into His family, reconciliation with God, and union with Him in His death and resurrection.
This repackaging of the gospel based on identity, intersectionality, and standpoint is the effect of a brave new religion.
The curse-tainted image of God in cultural value systems esteems the true, good, and beautiful aspects of honor, peace, freedom, and strength. Learning how cultures interpret reality and prioritize value systems is important for steering people toward the gospel’s solution to the original sin problem. And learning how cultures contextually interpret ideas and value systems is helpful for knowing how to disciple someone to con­form their thinking to the eternal gospel.
To put it another way, because of those aforementioned essential salvation doctrines that have consistently dominated the Spirit’s illumining work throughout church history, sinners who rest in Christ alone can freely enjoy the grace-filled benefits/ blessings of His active and passive obedience. These blessings include the exchange of our shame, fear, bondage, and weakness for His honor, peace, freedom, and strength—the expiation of our shameful, fearmongering, enslaving, and impoverishing guilt for the imputation of Christ’s honorable, peace-giving, liberating, and strengthening righteousness.
The spirit of the age has profoundly permeated our sensibili­ties. It seems narrow-minded and unsophisticated to suggest that the controlling framework of our theology and missiology should be the self-interpreting Word and its historical gospel doctrines. Instead, indicative of secular theology, we readily query the culture’s ecumenical priorities and multi-perspectival value systems to relevantly adapt the gospel. And this tendency is likely no more evident than in contemporary global missions. We desper­ately need a Word-centered, doctrine-driven reformation that shamelessly upholds the ancient gospel for missions. We must recover the ancient gospel. Its transcultural truths will outlast the brave new religion of this brave new world.

This is an excerpt from the forthcoming book, E.D. Burns, The Transcultural Gospel: Jesus is Enough for Sinners in Cultures of Shame, Fear, Bondage, and Weakness (Cape Coral, FL: Founders, 2021). You can order the book here.

Tweet Share