The Visible and Invisible Church

We sadly live in a day and age where there is much confusion about what the Bible teaches about the Church. This includes who and when Christians may be able to take the sacraments (i.e. Lord’s Supper, Baptism) and how membership and discipline are biblical. You may have, for example, have encountered comments like “insisting on Baptism is to be a legalist”. “The Lord’s Supper is a tradition of the church that Jesus never intended on being instituted in perpetuity”. “How can we excommunicate people for sin? Wouldn’t that be hypocrisy? Isn’t love meant to mean that we forgive and include all?”

Unfortunately, ignorance is rather to be expected in an age where most of the “theological” fights we are having are not around ecclesiology (the theology of the church) but whether or not the Bible can even be permitted to have a say given how counter-cultural it is.

Yet ignorance in this area is something that has been injurious to the church. It has been the cause of many unnecessary fights and splits. This ought not be because the Protestant church has had rather settled teachings on this for hundreds of years since the Reformation. It is a great shame that many modern churches have creeds (or statements of faith) that go for something like 10 points and are wholly deficient in this area. It’s as if we’ve decided that the only doctrines worth keeping are those that are “salvation related” and any disagreement on other issues is not worth having for the sake of unity. It’s been almost a race to the bottom of who can shed the most disputed doctrines in order to hold onto the greatest number of people. But this just will not do.

Considering this, I want to do my little bit in trying to rectify this deficiency. But where do we start? Where I think would be good is Chapter 25 of the Westminster Confession titled “Of the Church”. As an historic confession that involved the 121 leading English Puritan clergymen (called by the English Parliament), written not for any one sect but one that would provide the Church of England a properly reformed confession, most Protestants should see it as a very sensible and sane document.

Here are the first 3 points of WCF25:

I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.

This is important for the very useful distinction it makes between the visible and invisible church.

This distinction asserts that the church is first and foremost a spiritual entity that only God can see with perfect eyes – comprising the whole number of the elect. We can also see some usefulness in the distinction between that and the visible church (which we see) because there are some of the invisible church who will never be part of the visible church (e.g. converts at their death such as the thief on the cross in Luke 23:40–43), and there are some in the visible church who are unconverted.

Now, this doctrine of the visible church continues to be very useful, because it makes it clear how we Christians have a responsibility to God only with respect to the visible. Consider how there may be Christians who are known only to God (part of the invisible church), but not yet part of the visible church because they have not yet professed their faith to the church. This scenario means the church can’t be held responsible before God for failing to recognise Christians who have not yet become “visible” to them. We are only responsible for those who have been admitted into the visible church family (by making a credible profession – along with their children).

This provides a sensible protection: We are protected from those who would accuse the church of failing to recognise them as Christian. They may well have been, but God won’t expect us to have known that without the visible signs. That cuts across this me-centred world. Noone gets to be treated as a Christian brother just because he demands to be treated as one.

But where is the Biblical basis for this distinction you might ask? The Bible prooftexts are all publicly available and you can search for them online, but the way I like to explain is that this follows the pattern of how Old Testament Israel was both “visible” and “invisible” as well. There was an obviously a “visible” Israel – those born Jews “according to the flesh” (Romans 4:1). But there was also an “invisible” Israel as well – those according to the Spirit (those whom Paul would call a “a Jew… inwardly” (Romans 2:28-29).

Further, the Bible affirms that the church is a real continuation of Israel, having been “grafted” into Israel (Romans 11:17–24). Indeed now, we could say the church is the “true Israel” (Galatians 6:16). We could even say that Israel was the Old Testament church in Old Testament times, much as the New Testament church is New Testament Israel in New Testament times. An essential continuity is thereby maintained between the covenant people of both Testaments. Hence, Abraham is both the father of Israel and of the church (Romans 4:11; Galatians 3:29).

Some people will point out the radical differences between the OT and NT, and stress more of a discontinuity (e.g. the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost). There is truth to this (which is why we believe the covenant signs were replaced e.g. circumcision with baptism). But continuity rules! Jewish believers in Jesus were not considered as leaving their faith but affirming it, centred around Jesus the Messiah. And Christians who came to believe in Jesus joined the same body of believers as believing Jews (Ephesians 2:16).

– Bryan Kim