The epistemic hole in Free Church ecclesiology

If we define the church as “a free association of believers gathered by the Holy Spirit before the Risen Lord,” how would such independent communities ever come to the recognition of a canon of Scripture?

I was watching a fundamentalist Baptist preacher the other day — yes, I should spend my time more fruitfully — and he was harping on and on about how he didn’t believe in denominations because the church is nothing more than an independent, local assembly of believers. The only authority for his church — and other “properly constituted” churches — is the Bible. This pastor actually left the Southern Baptist Convention because of his convictions about the independence of the local church…yes, the SBC is too denominational for him! In other words, this pastor and this church doesn’t need “the church.” Thus, in principle, no church has ever needed a church other than itself, much less does it need synods, councils, assemblies, and other compromises to the independence of the local church. Therefore, no creeds and no confessions are necessary; moreover, creeds and confessions are illegitimate bindings on the local church. The Bible alone can bind the local church.

Of course, this raises one striking curiosity: the Bible itself, as a particular canon of texts, is a confession. The same justifications that give a denomination the authority to bind churches according to a confession (e.g., Augsburg or Westminster) are the same justifications that gave rise to a canon of Scripture. The local church needs other churches. It needs the witness of other churches to know “where to look” for the promises of God. It needs the discernment and accountability of other churches when it points to these texts, and not other texts, as the Word of God. As such, the testimony of the early church is given priority even as the Reformation re-evaluated the discernment of the early church in this matter, as in other matters. The Reformation churches, through her confessions, recognized the authority of the prophetic and apostolic texts as they have been handed to us, with the assumption that the Word of God was to be found there and, indeed, it was found there! From generation to generation, this assumption and this awakening sustain the church’s confidence in her Holy Scripture.

I have always liked the definition of the church that I gave above, which is roughly taken from Brunner’s very fine volume on ecclesiology (Dogmatics, vol. 3). However, I don’t see how such a definition can account for the authority of the canon. I don’t see how such a definition does not logically entail the clear absurdity of the above fundamentalist Baptist preacher, who speaks for vast swaths of evangelicalism (not just the fundamentalist wing) when it comes to this understanding of the church and the Bible. If there can not be, in principle, any confession other than the Bible, then we would not have a Bible. If the early church had operated with this “freedom” of independent churches, there would not — could not — have been a canon formation. Herein, the Reformed position, with the rest of the magisterial Reformation, has definite advantages and greater coherency.

[By the way, I am a member of the Evangelical Free Church of America, and I was raised a Baptist. So I am writing this as a criticism from within my own tradition.]



  1. If I remember rightly, the Evangelical Free Church has its roots in Scandinavian Lutheran Pietists who emigrated to America and broke away from their Lutheran heritage in favour of independentism, so maybe you’re working towards completing the ecclesiological circle here, Kevin.

    • Yeah, you’re right. The EFCA heritage is interesting in that it parallels similar separatist/nonconformist churches in Great Britain, yet the context is Lutheran and Pietist, not Calvinist. So, unlike here in the States, where the Congregationalists and Baptists have a strong tradition of Reformed influence, this is virtually absent from the EFCA. Thus, the EFCA is a bit impoverished when it comes to theology, but this has greatly improved in the last few decades. My church is a perfect example, where John Piper is read and Chris Tomlin is sung. As such, the church has, while keeping pietistic emphases (“personal relationship with Jesus Christ” and all that), given serious attention to typical Reformed emphases (the intrinsic glory, holiness, beauty, etc. of God). This combination works very well. We have lay people who are genuinely excited about doctrine yet even more excited about sharing their faith in Jesus Christ. The church is healthy, and it is growing (for all the right reasons).

      I should also note that the seminary of the EFCA is Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (TEDS), which is certainly one of the more important evangelical seminaries in the country, including some fairly solid systematics from John Feinberg…but the emphasis is more on biblical studies (not surprisingly). All in all, things are looking fairly well for the EFCA. We just need to get rid of the stupid “premillenial” clause in our statement of faith, as I duly noted during my session with the elders! I told them that it was an obvious non-essential and had no business being in a confession of faith.

  2. Sounds interesting, Kevin; I’d like to learn more.
    (Yeah, I’m a ‘theology/study of church bodies’ nerd! I love comparative symbolics, as it used to be called in Lutheran circles. American Lutherans have done some interesting work in that area, like Mayer and Piepkorn, both from the LC-MS – I think it reflects a German predilection for classifying things ;0) )

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s