ince the time of the Reformation, evangelical Christians have struggled with
the problems caused by the concepts of the invisible church and visible church .
The distinction is a valuable and necessary one, and was made in response to
the claim of the papal church to be the one true church. For the papists, such
a distinction between visible and invisible was spurious -- they saw the boundaries
of their institution as being identical with the boundaries of the one and only
church.
But the Reformers saw that some such distinction was necessary. Without it, men fall readily into the trap of thinking that all that is necessary for salvation is to be in good standing with the visible church. And because that is something they can readily arrange, they think that all is well with their souls. They start to think that their position on Christ's tree is eternally secure, and that they, a dry twig, support the root. Such vanity obviously had to be rejected, as the Reformers did.
At the same time, this classical Protestant distinction can be applied in such a way as to cause some problems of its own. While it was a valuable distinction, it was still not an inspired distinction. For example, are there really two churches, one invisible in heaven and the other visible here on earth? The assumption can easily be made, and has been, that the invisible church is the true church. But this means that the church below is, at best, a mere human attempt to approximate that heavenly church. And so we undertake, on our own authority, and by various ecclesiastical schemes, to "copy the pattern we think is up there on the mount." In doing this, we tend to one of two extremes. We either identify the two churches, falling into the error of the papists, or we separate them completely, and follow the path of gnosticism. The difficulty is not that we have made a distinction, but rather that we have made an ontological distinction instead of an historical distinction.
Our problem is that we have tended to think in the Platonic categories of the Greeks instead of the historical and eschatological categories of the Jews. That which is heavenly is true, we assume, and that which is earthly can at best be only a dim shadow of that which is true. Thus, because we think of the heavenly and earthly as two separate and distinct ontological realms, and we think of a church in each, we find ourselves stuck with two separate and distinct churches. But Christ is the Head of only one church.
The biblical teaching is that earthly history is eternally significant . Just as our individual sanctification occurs over the course of our earthly lives, so does the sanctification of the church occur throughout the process of earthly history. Consider the feeble strength of the church when it was organized first in the household of Abraham -- an old man and woman, childless. Consider it today, as countless thousands are calling upon the God of Abraham in truth. And for those who have the faith of Abraham, consider it in the centuries to come, when all the ends of the world shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before our God (Ps. 22:27).
Instead of thinking of the elect as composing an invisible church in hyperspace (a category which neglects the importance of history), we should think of the full number of the elect as composing the eschatological church -- the church as it will visibly be on the last glorious day of history. At that day, all the fruitless branches will finally be detached from His tree, and all the permanent branches will be there, bearing abundant fruit.
And rather than thinking of a visible church, we should think of the historical church . Obviously, not all of this historical church is visible to us now. The saints of seven hundred years ago, or the saints five hundred years from now, are all part of the historical church, the church as it grows, develops, and matures throughout all history.
A doctrine of an eschatological church does not neglect the importance of history; this church is the culmination of the entire process of redemptive history. Those who are in the historical church should not see that church as defiled because it is earthly , but rather as immature because it is early .
This distinction helps us to understand the relationship of unregenerate professing Christians to the church as well. The Bible teaches clearly that in the historical church there are fruitless branches (but real branches nonetheless) which will not be there in the eschatological church. Jesus sternly warns that "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned" (John 15:6). And Paul says the same. "For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either" (Rom. 11:21).
This does not mean that the elect can lose their salvation. But it does mean that branches can lose their position on the tree. The elect always bear fruit, and their fruit remains. And yet some false professors, with a genuine historical connection to the tree, never bear fruit, and consequently fall under the judgment of God.
So what is the true church? The true church is the church in history, the gathered throng of all professing households, assembled in covenant around the Word and Christ's ordinances. At the end of all history, this same church will be revealed to an astonished universe as a bride of extraordinary beauty. Many times throughout her history, she did not seem a suitable bride for our Lord. But then , on that last day, she will be presented and given away, without spot or wrinkle, or any other blemish.
