The church of centuries past had a far more robust and biblical understanding of the church’s corporate self-conception and the need for corporate discipleship and gathering. We can and ought to recapture and promote this past self-conception and ecclesiastically corporate mentality.

[Reformation21] Editor’s Note : This post has been adapted from a longer article set to be published in a forthcoming edition of the Puritan Reformed Journal.
It will come as little surprise to many readers on this site that the state of theology in the contemporary North American church is fraught with weakness. This theological anemia is one that prompts serious concern and demands serious attention. In particular, the way in which the modern evangelical populace in North America regards the church and the church’s corporate identity and the necessity of corporate worship is one that is in dire need of correction.
The trend has been observed for some years that a growing number of self-professing evangelical Protestants have been embracing a lower and lower ecclesiology. The tendency to downplay the necessity for corporate worship and corporate discipleship as a covenanted, local community (local church) has increased, parallel with an accompanying tendency to emphasize personal or private prayer and Bible reading either over against corporate worship/gathering, or that such individual habits of piety are fundamentally more important than any such corporate practices of piety. While this social trend has been observed anecdotally for years and has been the subject of ire within many a sermon introduction or popular magazine article[1], in recent years, there has at last emerged empirical data to substantiate this observation.
In 2020, Ligonier Ministries, in partnership with Lifeway Research, commissioned and performed a survey[2] of three thousand Americans asking a variety of questions about key theological tenets and doctrines: about Jesus Christ, the Bible, truth, ethics, etc. The results are eye-opening. Particular to the concerns of this article, one of the statements to which survey participants were asked to respond was this, “Worshiping alone or with one’s family is a valid replacement for regularly attending church.” Amongst all respondents, 32% “Somewhat agree” with that statement, and 26% “Strongly agree”—thus, 58% of all respondents viewed that statement favorably.[3] Conversely, some 29% of all respondents disagreed with that statement either “strongly” or “somewhat.” Now, these data reflect the views of Americans writ large, not specifically the views espoused by evangelicals. However, the Ligonier Survey does provide a subset of data regarding evangelical responses to that statement—and it does not portend well for evangelicals’ ecclesiology. When faced with the statement “Worshiping alone or with one’s family is a valid replacement for regularly attending church,” 20% of self-identified evangelical respondents strongly agreed with that statement—a full fifth!—and 19% agreed somewhat. Nearly 40% of all evangelical respondents viewed the aforementioned statement favorably. Conversely, some 55% of self-identified evangelicals disagreed with that statement—35% disagreeing strongly, and 20% disagreeing somewhat.[4]
While the higher statistic is heartening, it is at the same time disconcerting: barely over half of self-identified evangelicals take issue with an individualistic Christian mindset. Barely over half of self-identified evangelicals, presumably, object to this statement which downplays a corporate sensibility and obligation to the Christian life—and it is only just over a third which disagrees strongly! Meanwhile, a strong minority (39%) find that congregationally-reductionistic attitude regarding Christianity at least somewhat agreeable.
This is a growing trend in North American Christianity and it betrays the low ecclesiology which continues to plague the church. This is something that must be answered with a strong ecclesiology that recognizes and emphasizes the centrality of the corporate life and identity of the institutional church, her people, and their collective ministry. The current moment demands a resounding “Amen!” to Cyprian’s dictum (which sentiment has been perpetuated in Reformed circles by Calvin in Institutes IV.1.1.)[5] that “No one can have God for his Father, who does not have the Church for his mother.”[6]
Recent Scholarship
In recent years there has been something of a happy resurgence of both popular-level writings as well as more scholarly theological work relevant to ecclesiology, such as much of the fine work that has been produced by 9Marks ministries and other connected writers.[7] Much of this scholarship has come from a credobaptist viewpoint and assumes congregationalism as the standard for church governance. Though this factor is at odds with classically Reformed and Presbyterian ecclesiological commitments, these works are nonetheless useful in emphasizing the necessity for the corporate gathering and a corporate Christian self-conception.[8] While there has been useful ecclesiological work coming from Presbyterian and Reformed authors of late, these have tended to be more popular-level works that focus more narrowly on issues surrounding the sacraments or that of pastoral leadership/church officers.[9]
There are works that deserve frequent reference in ecclesiological studies such as the late Edmund Clowney’s work on the church[10] which, while Reformed in its theological orientation, is not exactly a work of recent scholarship, being published in 1995. Of course, the classic 19th-century ecclesiological tome by James Bannerman[11] is both Reformed and eminently worthy of consideration, but hardly recent. There is also the widely popular work by Dietrich Bonhoeffer on the communal/community aspect of the life of the church,[12] but this work is not recent (being published in 1939) and Bonhoeffer’s theological orientation is not of the classical Reformed sort.[13] One happy exception to this is Michael Horton’s People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology, which was published in 2008.[14] There are also forthcoming scholarly works that promise to contribute to a more robust ecclesiology in our day but, at the time of this article’s writing, have not yet been released and are thus unable to be considered.[15]
Read More
Related Posts:

In the case of an abortion, the mother’s actions are a cause of the baby’s death, without which the baby would still live. The woman and the abortion doctor partnered to murder her baby. Thus, if the woman voluntarily sought out the abortion—meaning she was not coerced by someone else (who would then be charged himself in the matter)—then she was guilty for the murder. She actively sought out the “doctor” to kill the baby in her womb. The woman is comparable to the man who hires a hit man to kill his wife. He is a murderer, even if indirectly. This is how state laws work for conspiracy in such murder. It is also how the Bible understands the guilt for murder.

Something happened that many of us never thought would happen—the Supreme Court just overturned its infamous 1973 decision Roe v. Wade, which for the most part prohibited the states from regulating abortion in the first and second trimester. The 1992 decision Casey v. Planned Parenthood modified this to prohibit states from abortion regulations that place an “undue burden” on mothers prior to the baby’s “viability.” In other words, Roe and Casey legalized early-term abortions in all of the 50 states.
But that has all changed now with the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health that was issued on June 24, 2022. By overturning Roe and Casey, the Supreme Court has returned abortion laws to the domain of the states—which is the rightful constitutional place for such criminal laws (made especially clear by the Tenth Amendment). Most criminal laws, part of state “police powers,” should be set by the states, not the federal government. With Roe rightfully overturned, this means a state like California can continue to permit abortion, while a state like Alabama can outlaw it completely.
We should celebrate the overturning of Roe v. Wade, both because it is the correct decision per the U.S. Constitution, but also because it ends the legal protection of the “right” for a mother to kill her baby inside her womb. However, while we celebrate Roe being overturned, we must also recognize this is a new stage in the so-called “pro-life” movement. If the goal is to outlaw abortion, then we must now seek to outlaw abortion in as many states as possible. Overturning Roe was just the beginning.
Yet even here there seems to be disagreement, as some who call themselves “pro-life” speak as if the goal is only to reduce abortions (a goal many “pro-choicers” also speak of). Others, like myself, say we certainly want there to be no abortions, but there is also the goal to simply outlaw abortion in all of the United States. Abortion is murder, and therefore all people who voluntarily participate in abortion should be charged with murder. (This is why “anti-abortion” is often a better term than “pro-life.”)
Thus, with the anticipation of Roe being overturned thanks to a leaked first draft of the opinion, a new debate arose among those in the so-called “pro-life” camp over two questions: (1) whether the mother who aborts her child should be punished by law, and (2) what the penalty for abortion should be for the doctor and the mother.
Should the Mother Who Aborts Her Baby Be Punished?
This question has generated some serious debate, as many in the “pro-life” camp probably never expected us to be in this situation. Let’s start with where there is agreement. Everyone on the pro-life side believes abortion is murder and is thus morally impermissible. Everyone agrees an abortion doctor/provider should be charged with murder, as he is the one who performs the act of killing the child. Therefore, states should pass laws criminalizing abortion as a form of murder, and states should shut down abortion clinics and prosecute abortion doctors. So far, so good.
Yet it logically follows that a woman who procures an abortion resulting in the death of her child should also be prosecuted for the crime of murder. Though the woman who hires an abortion doctor did not do the killing herself, she is an accomplice to the murder or a conspirator. Accomplice liability (sometimes called aiding and abetting) involves intentionally assisting another in committing a crime, while conspiracy involves an intentional agreement, even implied, to commit an illegal act.
In the case of an abortion, the mother’s actions are a cause of the baby’s death, without which the baby would still live. The woman and the abortion doctor partnered to murder her baby. Thus, if the woman voluntarily sought out the abortion—meaning she was not coerced by someone else (who would then be charged himself in the matter)—then she was guilty for the murder. She actively sought out the “doctor” to kill the baby in her womb. The woman is comparable to the man who hires a hit man to kill his wife. He is a murderer, even if indirectly. This is how state laws work for conspiracy in such murder.
It is also how the Bible understands the guilt for murder. King David instructed his men in a letter to have Uriah murdered—“Set Uriah in the forefront of the hardest fighting, and then draw back from him, that he may be struck down, and die” (2 Samuel 11:15). Though David did not directly kill Uriah, the prophet Nathan told David that he did “what is evil” in God’s sight and “struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword” (2 Samuel 12:9). In other words, David was guilty of killing Uriah, an innocent man. And God punished him accordingly (2 Samuel 12:10). Hiring someone else to murder for you is still murder.
Let us also ask this question—if a woman who voluntarily had an abortion performed is not guilty for the crime of abortion, then what is she guilty of? Did she do nothing wrong? Was she a passive agent in the murder? The problem with saying the woman is not guilty of murder is this makes her to be a victim rather than a perpetrator of the crime. Sadly, this is how many “pro-life” advocates speak. Yes, there are many bad actors in the abortion industry, including those who teach abortion is morally permissible and encourage women to have an abortion (including employers that want childless women workers). However, that does not relieve women from moral and legal agency for committing an abortion. There are also lots of bad influences that lead to a person using heroin, or even selling it, but our laws do not say such a person is not legally responsible for breaking drug laws because he had bad parents and attended a drug-ridden school.
One of the greatest problems in the entire abortion industry is the fact that abortion has been legal. The law is a teacher, and the law saying abortion is permitted and a constitutional “right” teaches women and men that it is not morally wrong. But if a state outlaws abortion, then that has all changed. The law will explicitly teach that abortion is immoral and considered murder by the civil authorities, and those who carry out such murder will be punished. This teaching should be reflected in all state institutions, including public schools. Of course, women will only be charged for crimes after such a law is enacted, meaning there will be no ex post facto laws.
In many states, if a person murders both a pregnant woman and the baby in her womb, he will be charged with double homicide. It is only when the mother murders her own baby that she is not guilty of murder. This is a double standard. Consistency demands that the mother who kills her child via abortion is punished for the crime along with the abortion doctor.
A Critique of Those Who Do Not Want to Prosecute the Mother
Now some “pro-life” leaders are saying we should only pass laws that lead to the prosecution of abortion doctors, not the women who have the abortion performed on them. Let’s start with the argument by the influential Baptist Al Mohler from back in 2016:
But here’s where the pro-life movement returns back to say, who is the guilty party in an abortion? It is the person who brings about the death of the child. The woman seeking the abortion is not without moral responsibility, but she is not herself bringing about the death of the unborn human baby. That’s the crucial issue here, and that’s why the pro-life movement has consistently sought to criminalize abortion at the level of the person performing the abortion.
This argument flatly misunderstands causation in criminal law, including accomplice murder and conspiracy. Yes, the person directly performing the abortion is guilty for bringing about the death of the child. But so is the mother who voluntarily goes to see the abortion doctor to have her baby killed. Mohler says “she is not herself bringing about the death of the unborn human baby.” Following this logic, then neither did David “bring about” the death of Uriah, since he asked someone else to do the killing for him. Mohler fails to account for the role of indirect actions, wanting only to prosecute the hit man and not the guy who paid him to kill.
Next let’s turn to the argument by another Baptist, Denny Burk, who describes what I am advocating as “abolitionist” and argues the “pro-life” movement has always insisted on not prosecuting mothers who kill their children. Let’s just stop right there and say it is irrelevant what some movement said prior to Roe being overturned. Moreover, many states pre-Roe did incriminate women who had abortions (see below). I have long considered many within the Republican Party to only give lip service to being “pro-life,” and thus they would not actually know what to do if Roe were overturned. It is quite likely that many in the “pro-life” movement maintained a more palatable position so as to gain political favor. There is no reason for that now. We were previously working with the Roe boundaries. But it is a new age. As for the term “abolitionism,” this is often used for those who reject incrementalist approaches to outlawing abortion (which I do not). Thus, this is a separate issue and a straw man argument by Burk.
Burk has two arguments against prosecuting women who commit abortions. First is a moral argument that “it is not always clear what level of culpability should be assigned to the mother.” While the mother has “moral agency and culpability in seeking out an abortion… it is not always straightforward to what degree she is morally implicated.”
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Andrew T. Walker |
Friday, June 16, 2023
For practicing Christians, fidelity to God may mean recommitting ourselves to the practices that habituate us into deeper relationship. Even when we do not feel like it, we must read our Bibles and pray as a ritual reminder that the first thing about each of us is our ultimate end, not our temporal end. Contemplating God’s works in His Word is good for you. We must go to church, catechize ourselves and our families, and love each other.

One of the most important sentences in the entire Western canon comes from Augustine. It is a statement written in the indicative voice that many are doubtless familiar with, given its ubiquity. From The Confessions, Augustine states, “Our hearts are restless until they find their rest in thee.” Though this sentence is an indicative statement of truth, it also assumes an imperative: we are meant to be in communion with God. For homo religiosus, knowing God is to be human at its fullest. We are to commune with God not because we seek our own supremacy, but because communing with God is what brings peaceful rectitude to the soul. Knowing God quenches our deepest desires to know the glorious and be known by the glorious.
The First Pillar
In the planning and execution for Fidelity Month, it became clear that dedication to God needed to be the first pillar of fidelity. This first pillar reminds us of an architectonic truth: whatever the goods of family, community, and nation represent, their intelligibility must be ordered and understood by what created them and, in turn, best illuminates them: God. The “ordo amoris,” or “order of loves” spoken of in the Christian tradition, insists on the inherent goods of family, community, and nation as ends to be pursued for their own sake. The love they are given, however, is proportionate to the love they are owed. But we owe God our highest affections because it is He who has made us. As we come to know God and conform ourselves to His divine plan, fullness of being comes into view. Scripture deems the knowledge of God as a resplendent good that colors every other experience of our humanity. As Psalm 36:9 states, “For with you is the fountain of life; in your light do we see light.” Communion with God is what lights our path (Psalm 119:105). If we shall not walk in darkness, we must turn ourselves to the light (Isaiah 9:2; John 8:12).
Never more than now is the time ripe to rededicate ourselves to God. It’s what our culture needs most. With religion on the decline, it should come as no surprise that mental health appears more statistically volatile than ever before. Excise or trivialize the most important foundation of a person’s existence—their relationship to God—and it is to be expected that humanity’s sense of balance and purpose would be torn asunder.
Furthermore, in an age of cascading “identities” on endless offer, knowledge of God bequeaths a right and definitive knowledge of the self. Christian theology has a rich tradition of delineating the relationship between epistemology and anthropology, insisting on their essential unity. The two subjects ask: how do we know who we are? Theologians believe that philosophy on its own cannot adequately answer this question. In John Calvin’s Institutes, his famous opening lines sought to demarcate how knowledge of God spills over into an accurate knowledge of the self. For Calvin, they are inextricably bound in a helix-like structure. As Calvin says:
Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But, while they are joined by many bonds, which one precedes and brings forth the other is not easy to discern. In the first place, no one can look upon himself without immediately turning his thoughts to the contemplation of God, in whom he “lives and moves” (Acts 17:28). For quite clearly, the mighty gifts with which we are endowed are hardly from ourselves; indeed, our very being shares in God’s own being. Then, by these benefits shed like dew from heaven upon us, we are led as by rivulets to the spring itself.
Here Calvin restates that architectonic truth: God is the font of all meaningful knowledge. Apart from him, we fumble around in the darkness. We cannot explain the obligations that beset us without God as the source of those obligations.
Read More
Related Posts: