London Baptist Confession, Westminster Confession and Really Bad "Not" Churches (Chs. XXV and XXVI)

London Baptist Confession, Westminster Confession and Really Bad "Not" Churches (Chs. XXV and XXVI)

How do we address really "bad" churches?  This is a interesting dilemma avoided in evangelical circles today.  Some tout church discipline.  Others say the gospel is all that matters (well at least a Calvinistic version).  There is an ever growing impulse to look past false teaching from the pulpit and disobedience in the pew and what is called a church is actually not.

To many this may sound judgmental (whatever this term means usually only to the one defining it).  But this concept is not new but was actually addressed nearly 400 years ago in the London Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith (one place Presbyterians and Baptist can agree).

LBC (Ch XXVI) reads,
"The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan."

WCF (Ch. XXV) reads,

"The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan."

I doesn't take much imagination to see that they are identical.  They both held to such a firm belief that local churches can become so corrupt in the errors that they are not actually functioning churches.  The confessions do not explicitly elaborate on what defines as error but it is clear they both believed you can err enough to no longer be a church.

Here's the sad part of the story.  Today theology has become some marginalized that you can almost believe anything without being accused of false teaching.  Here is one place (among many) where I believe new evangelicalism and their offspring have gone wrong.  Consider the following:

Does orthodoxy still matter?  Who determines what is correct doctrine?  Have problems with orthodoxy church creeds, then write another one?  Make up a new one from scratch to be as broad and inclusive as (presently) deemed necessary.

Does orthopraxy still matter?  Who determines what right Christian living and practice is?  Nearly everyone is ready with a finger to accuse of legalism or antinomianism.  Is your practice too worldly?  That's an easy fix, just redefine what is worldly (so that it doesn't include what you want to do).

Does orthpathy still matter?  Who determines what right emotions, desires, and affections are true and correct?  What forms of media and music are given full permission to affect our minds (and the minds of our children)?  What of literature and entertainment means?

In summation, pointing out and avoiding false teaching is nothing new (think: novel).  Don't think the most recent evangelical authors producing books on church discipline are coming up with some new or more biblical than the past.  Simply not true.

I think if we actually read many of our church's documents from the past, we'll find great deals with which we can agree (and take hardy counsel).  Without feeling the need to rewrite it all over again.

So is your church a real church?  What errors are we tolerating in the pew?  From the pulpit?