Church Covenants - Relic or Relevant?

In the last article, we explored the extent of Biblical authority and jurisdiction within the church and how it relates to the other God-ordained organizations of family and government. As we ended the article, we said that many errors around authority have sprung up relatively unchallenged in our churches today - ranging from the over-extension of pastoral authority to the abdication of church leadership authority. Our proposal for a solution to this is not a new one, as nothing new can be true by definition. We can gain better insight or detail, but the underlying principles have existed since Creation. Our proposal is exactly what the church of the 16th century developed - a church covenant.

The development of a church covenant historically is linked to the dilution of the doctrine of baptism. The New Testament model called for the Christian to:

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matthew 28:19-20

The idea of baptism is inextricably linked with the concept of teaching, or discipleship. When one was baptized in the early church, there was a historical significance to it that related not only to the vertical relationship with God, but also to a horizontal relationship with man. Many people do not understand that baptism was a well-understood practice in the Jewish world. When one became a proselyte to Judaism, the Pharisees routinely immersed, or baptized, them as a symbol of their induction into a new religion, and all of the responsibilities that entails. Essentially, baptism is an act of covenanting with a new religious group. Thus, when Jesus commanded his apostles to teach and baptize all nations, he was instructing them to lead the pagans to a saving knowledge of Christ and then to baptize them as a symbol of leaving their old life and entering into a new one.

In today's churches, this meaning is used only in the vertical sense. Baptism is a symbol of our death to sin, burial, and resurrection to new life in Christ. This is proper as far as it goes, but it leaves out the meaning in the horizontal sense. Certainly, there is a testimony involved that can be considered to be horizontal, but what is that testimony, really? Is it meant as a message to the unsaved or to the saved? Is it meant to be evangelistic or something else? If we examine its purpose in Judaism and in the early church, we will see that it was an open proclamation of leaving their old life and community to join with a new one. This was often a very solemn decision because family and friends would most likely be forsaken, viewing the baptism as a symbol of betrayal and repudiation of their beliefs, which is exactly what it was. This betrayal would bring severe consequences in most cases, often including disinheritance and disavowal by the family. Thus, the negative aspect of the horizontal relationship - disavowal of the old life - was a very real and tangible thing to early Christians. Further, the implicit covenant with the new family, the spiritual family, was also very solemn. This was their new community. Few of their old friends, neighbors, and family members would have anything to do with them now. They needed the church as the new support group and family to replace that which they had lost. This meant that the idea of leaving a church to simply go find another one was not taken lightly. Ideas of church leadership, authority, and discipline were concrete and dynamic in their application. This community had to survive against opposition and hatred, often from those they used to call family and friends. Without sticking together and working through their differences, they would have no chance.

Thus, the covenant was implicit in the baptism. The horizontal component of baptism created a rift between the new church member and their former lives, creating a new familial bond with a diverse group of former strangers, brought together by the Spirit of God into a new community. This community had its rules of conduct and organization, which could not be ignored without consequences. This is also why we see numerous examples in the epistles where Paul commended a church member from one community to another community. When circumstances forced someone to move, it was critical that they be inserted into a new community quickly and seamlessly, with no question as to their salvation, baptism, or good standing within the church.

As the baptism of children became the norm within the Catholic church and within the Church of England, baptism lost some of its meaning. A more explicit form of covenant was needed to solemnize the joining of a church, since baptism had been corrupted sufficiently to have lost its power in this regard. In our day, baptism has lost almost all of its significance in the horizontal regard. People are baptized as infants, then as children joining a church corporation, then perhaps baptized again if they are saved later in life. Ignorance and confusion abound with regard to the meaning of baptism. Thus, our churches have been deprived of a ritual that had great significance in the early church.

Rituals are important. God made us with an innate sense of solemnity associated with rituals. Our modern society tries to portray such things as hokey because Satan understands that a life lived without milestones marked by rituals is a life that is not memorable or anchored. A true baptism ritual, understood in both its vertical and horizontal aspects would have great power in the life of a Christian. No longer would a Christian hop from church to church, looking for someplace they "like". They would understand that their new family cannot be forsaken without the same pain and suffering associated with forsaking their physical family. Becoming a member of a church is not simply assenting to a doctrinal statement, which is, in most cases, either too anemic or over-specific to be of any actual use. The church is not a social club for Christians, a platform for dating and forming friendships within a "safe" environment. It is the body of Christ. When that body loses a member, it bleeds and loses some of its functionality. A house divide against itself cannot stand. Satan has decimated the church and made it impotent in our society by making membership a light thing; a voluntary, relatively insignificant action. The church has been complicit in this compromise by treating membership in a corporate way rather than a spiritual way.

A covenant need not be long or burdensome. It simply is a document that creates a formality to joining a church. It requires a commitment and ritualizes that commitment. It provides a vehicle for teaching what true church membership is all about. It should not require a prospective member to assent to a doctrinal statement that is so detailed and closed that only a seminary student from that particular denomination could honestly understand and assent. It should simply apply the New Testament principles of church membership. It should require a testimony of salvation through a changed life - this is the proof that the teaching part of the Great Commission has been accomplished properly. It should require a commitment to God and His church as evidenced by a solemn ritual of baptism. The signing of the covenant finalizes the ritual and specifies the continuing duties of the church members toward leadership and toward one another.

The final benefit of a church covenant is that it also spells out the responsibilities of church leaders, including the scope of their authority. A covenant is a contract that has been used since the time of Adam. It demonstrates and formalizes an agreement between two or more persons as to an exchange of goods, actions, or ongoing responsibilities. In the area of the church, it succinctly defines the responsibilities of leadership, the individual member, and the church as an entire body. When this is defined and on paper, there is no open door for usurpation of authority by leaders or lack of submission by members. Those in violation of the covenant are exhorted by the other covenant members to restore themselves to the covenantal relationship. If that cannot be accomplished, then that relationship is dissolved, by the offender, not by the innocent party. Excommunication is not an offensive act, but a defensive one. It is an effort to excise a cancer before it spreads. However, it holds no weight if we are simply dealing with a social club. The disciplined member is not given over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh as Paul states in I Corinthians, and is thus not given the opportunity to feel the weight of discipline and repent. Rather, they go to the church two streets over and start over again in their "new club".

In this way, the church has abdicated its authority as a whole. If churches required a letter of recommendation as is seen in the New Testament epistles, it would eliminate this church-hopping phenomenon and exert spiritual pressure upon those whose rebellion and independent spirits strain against Biblical church authority. A prospective member who is not new to the geographic area should be looked upon with some measure of suspicion since they have broken fellowship with their former church for some reason. They may be in the right, but that cannot be assumed. Nor can they be allowed to join the new church without fully understanding that they are making a solemn oath and covenant before God. We must understand that we live in a day where the church has compromised away most everything that makes a church influential in a society. It is our fault that our country has degenerated to the point it has. One of the ways in which we have compromised is by not expecting church members to uphold their end of the church covenant. Our desire for numbers and the need to staff our ever-increasing programs, which have nonetheless failed to impact our society and stem its descent into paganism, requires us to accept all comers. We cannot afford to be picky, otherwise the corporate entity that is called a church suffers.

A restoration of a church covenant is a call to something greater - a call to a second Reformation. A call to restore the doctrines of the New Testament that have been sacrificed in the name of expediency and pragmatism. A call to restore the church to its former position in our formerly Christian nation as the arbiters of right, incubators of righteous leaders, and foundation of social activism. Not because these things are the ends, but because bringing glory to God requires us to take dominion over this world and to reach the lost en masse. Serving those around us in this world, not only those who are in our select circle, glorifies God and will lead to an outpouring of His Spirit in our country. If God is sovereign, and if God appoints the rulers of this world, then we must acknowledge that our covenant-breaking, compromising ways have led us to where we are now. God has put us in bondage as he did with the Israelites so many times in the Old Testament. We have the leadership in our country that we deserve. Re-institution of the proper exercise of church covenants is not the only needful thing, but the repentance and searching of the Scriptures required to properly institute such a practice across denominational boundaries is exactly what we need. Maybe the covenant can simply be the vehicle.