After years of steady decline, a local church had to close its doors. A sign on the front door read: “Gone out of business; didn’t know what our business was.” What is the church’s “business”? Why did God create the church? What does the church exist for? These are crucial questions related to ecclesiology, the study of the doctrine of the church. But why is this important?
Ecclesiology Matters
There are many reasons the doctrine of the church is of supreme importance. Here are three:
1. Because it matters to God. Paul speaks of the church as the body of Christ, a powerful metaphor that, among other things, points to the close connection between Christ and the church. According to Ellen White, “the church is the one object upon which God bestows in a special sense His supreme regard.”1 Just think about that for a moment. God deeply cares about the church!
2. Because its future in the West appears to be bleak. For a good number of years now, Christianity has been rapidly losing adherents in the West. So much so that the continuity and future existence of the church in the West seems to be in jeopardy. Of course, in Christ we can always be hopeful. Yet, in light of Christianity’s steady decline, having a clear vision of the church and its mission is crucial.
3. Because Adventist ecclesiology is a work in progress. While solid Adventist concepts on the doctrine of the church have been developed over the years, a lot still remains to be worked out.
Regarding this last point, in 1989 Adventist theologian Barry Oliver wrote: “An urgent need for the [Adventist] church to clarify its ecclesiological perspective still exists. . . . If the structures of the church are to reflect the theological dimensions of the church, more thorough ecclesiological work with reference to the uniqueness of the Seventh-day Adventist message and mission needs to be done. The church needs to integrate both ontological [regarding the nature of the church] and functional categories in its ecclesiology.”2 Similarly, in 2003 (about 15 years later) Adventist theologian Ángel Manuel Rodríguez echoed Oliver’s point when he wrote: “The time may have come for the Adventist movement to reflect on and develop an Adventist ecclesiology that will clarify its very nature and that will facilitate the fulfillment of its mission.”3
Oliver and Rodriguez coincide on two points: (a) to further develop the Adventist doctrine of the church is a pressing need, and (b) two key aspects should be considered: the ontological, what the church is in its most fundamental essence or nature; and the functional, what the church is called to do. Simply put, theological reflection about our Adventist understanding of the church’s essence and practice is a must.
In light of Christianity’s steady decline, having a clear vision of the church and its mission is crucial.
Adventist Ecclesiology:
A Brief Historical Overview
A detailed history of the doctrine of the church in Adventism is beyond the scope of this article. In the chart (see above), however, I offer a brief historical overview of the major developments pertaining to Adventist ecclesiology, in five stages.
A detailed analysis of each of these stages is not possible here. Yet a few remarks are worth making. Looking at its historical development, the Adventist doctrine of the church has often been:
• an inherited ecclesiology: We have adopted and preserved many ecclesiological practices from other denominations. These practices are not necessarily wrong, but a biblical-theological view of the church from an Adventist perspective still remains to be fully developed.
• conditioned by eschatology:Our ecclesiology has tended to put a lot of emphasis on the concept of the “remnant.” While the remnant is a key biblical component of the doctrine of the church, there is much more that needs to be considered.
• sidetracked by pressing needs:As theological crises have emerged, Adventist theologians have had to deal with the “urgent” matters, while other “important” issues have often been placed on the “back burner.”
• focused primarily on functionality:historically, we have given priority to church structure and organization, but theological reflection about the nature/essence and mission of the church has been relatively scant.
While God could have implemented His redemptive mission on His own, in His wisdom He chose to involve human beings.
Church Next: Imago Dei
What are the next steps in our Adventist ecclesiological quest? How can the development of a robust Adventist ecclesiology be furthered? In this article I propose the concept of the image of God as a theological “north,” taking into account the following premises:
1. Theological reflection begins with and is grounded in God, particularly as revealed in Christ (Heb. 1:1).
2. In Christ we see that God has a mission (John 3:16).
3. God calls the church to join Him in His mission.
4. The ultimate goal of God’s mission is to restore His image in humanity. Hence:
5. The church exists to join God’s mission of imago Dei restoration. I now briefly unpack these concepts.
Theology Begins With God (Christ)
Theological reflection should always be grounded in and revolve around theology proper: our understanding of God. While there is room to study various subjects in Scripture and develop a variety of doctrines (theology of the Sabbath, theology of the sanctuary, etc.), the basis and center of theology is God. Ecclesiology is no exception: the church must be theologically understood in light of who God is. Moreover, while God has revealed Himself to humanity in many ways, Christ is the clearest revelation of God (John 14:9; Heb. 1:1, 2). Hence, healthy theological reflection on the nature and function of the church (the body of Christ) needs to be grounded in a healthy theology of God and of Christ (Christology).
In Christ = God Has a Mission
Christ is the central figure of the Bible, which includes a collection of stories portraying the history of God’s plan of redemption. In its essence the Word of God is the story of God’s actions and interactions with humanity, with the main purpose of rescuing the world from the sin problem. The Old Testament introduces the problem and proclaims the coming of the Messiah as the promised Redeemer. The New Testament declares Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises and prophetic announcements. Like pieces of a puzzle, every Bible story fits into this bigger picture of God’s plan of redemption; the calling of the patriarchs, the Exodus, the sanctuary, the various covenants, etc., are all part of a bigger story, the story of God’s mission, with Christ’s life, death, and resurrection as the climax.
God Calls Humans to Join His Mission
While God could have implemented His redemptive mission on His own, in His wisdom He chose to involve human beings. In the Old Testament, Israel as a nation was called by God to be His priests on earth. Their calling and mission were clear: to reveal the only true God and His kingdom to the world. Likewise, in the New Testament God called and established the church, the “new Israel” (Jews and Gentiles together), to join Him in a new phase of His plan of redemption. After Christ’s earthly ministry (life, death, resurrection, and ascension), the Holy Spirit was poured out, and the church carried out its calling and mission to expand God’s kingdom on earth in preparation for its full establishment with the future second coming of Jesus.
It is important to note that the mission is God’s first, and then the church’s. As Jürgen Moltmann wrote: “It is not that the church has a mission of salvation in the world; it is the mission of the Son and the Spirit through the Father that includes the church.”4 Commenting on this, Gregg Allison writes: “Moltmann emphasizes the importance of understanding ‘not that the church “has” a mission, but the very reverse: that the mission of Christ creates its own church.’ ”5
Summarizing what has been said so far, in order to think about the church theologically, the sequence proposed here moves from God as revealed in Christ, to Christ’s mission, and then to the church. God ◊ Mission ◊ Church. In so doing, as we reflect theologically on the person of God we see that, in Christ, God has a mission, and in His wisdom He has decided to call human beings and make them coparticipants in His mission. The church, then, is called into existence to join God’s mission.
The next logical and crucial question is: What is the ultimate goal of God’s mission? Simply put, if the church exists to join God’s mission, what is the “telos” (goal) of God’s mission? This is not a minor question, because lack of clarity here results in the church confusing missional means with the end of mission. In fact, whenever I’ve asked a group of leaders or members what the mission of the church is, I always obtain a variety of answers: “the church exists to proclaim the gospel”; “the church exists to baptize and teach”; “the church exists to help the needy”; “the church exists for church growth,” etc. These are all extremely important and have their role in the missional process, but they are not the end/goal of mission.
It is by focusing on and knowing Christ in His fullness and all His beauty that the restoration of God’s image in humanity is realized.
The problem with confusing means with ends is that at times we stop short of fulfilling God’s mission. For instance, at times the mission of the church has been reduced to numeric and institutional growth. Just to be clear, as a pastor I am thrilled when people make the decision to be baptized, and I am equally excited when new churches are planted and new church buildings erected. But important as numeric and institutional growth may be, I believe these are missional means to the missional end, or missional steps leading to the ultimate goal. But what is that ultimate goal?
The Ultimate Goal of God’s Mission: Imago Dei Restoration
Regarding Christ’s mission, Ellen White writes: “To restore in man the image of his Maker, to bring him back to the perfection in which he was created, to promote the development of body, mind, and soul, that the divine purpose in his creation might be realized—this was to be the work of redemption. This is the object of education, the great object of life.”6 Clearly, to restore the image of God in humanity is the goal of the plan of redemption. And this is not an isolated quote. Quite the opposite: the concept of the restoration of God’s image in humanity as the ultimate goal of Christ’s mission appears multiple times in the writings of Ellen White.
White also talks about how this goal is to be accomplished: “The knowledge of God as revealed in Christis the knowledge that all who are saved must have. This is the knowledge that works transformation of character. Received into the life, it will re-create the soul in the image of Christ. This is the knowledge that God invites His children to receive, beside which all else is vanity and nothingness.”7
It is by focusing on and knowing Christ in His fullness and all His beauty that the restoration of God’s image in humanity is realized. As Paul writes: “But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformedinto the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord” (2 Cor. 3:18). This should be central when thinking through Adventist ecclesiology. How can we present and embody the most beautiful and accurate picture of Christ so that, as we personally and collectively contemplate Him, our lives are transformed into His likeness? This should be the goal of our doctrinal formulations, our preaching and teaching, our programming, and of everything we do.
Adventist Church Next: Imago Dei
It seems to me that . . .
• if God as a loving, relational being (1 John 4:8) created human beings in His image (Gen. 1:26-28), and . . .
• if sin distorted God’s image in humanity, and . . .
• if Christ’s mission is to restore God’s image in humanity, and . . .
• if the church exists to join God in His mission of restoration, THEN . . .
• everythingwe do in the churchshould be about imago Dei restoration.
This should be, I suggest, the unifying telos (goal) and guiding north, not only to rethink theologically the essence of the church and the various aspects of our ecclesiology (mission, discipleship, community, leadership, authority, etc.), but also to guide our day-to-day institutional functions and congregational practices.
Closing Thoughts
So what is the church, and why does it exist? First, the church is the community of faith called by God, in Christ Jesus, moved by the Holy Spirit. Second, the church is called to join God in His mission to restore His image in humanity. At the center of the image is a Christlike character reflected in loving relationships toward God, our neighbor, ourselves, and creation. This is what the church exists for. In the words of Ellen White: “Enfeebled and defective as it may appear, the church is the one object upon which God bestows in a special sense His supreme regard. It is the theater of His grace, in which He delights to reveal His power to transform hearts.”8
In essence, what should be “next” regarding Adventist ecclesiology? In my humble opinion, the Adventist Church “next” is to further develop our doctrine of the church making imago Dei restoration as the guiding north. May the Holy Spirit guide our theological reflection so that our ecclesiological formulations and ecclesial practices may continue to move in the right direction so that God’s mission may be better accomplished.
1 Ellen G. White, The Acts of the Apostles (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1911), p. 12.
2 Barry D. Oliver, “Principles for Reorganization of the Seventh-day Adventist Administrative Structure, 1888-1903: Implications for an International Church” (Ph.D. dissertation, Andrews University, 1989), p. 335.
3 Ángel Manuel Rodríguez, “Adventist Ecclesiology: Introduction to the Project,” p. 1 (shared by the author via email).
4 Jürgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit: A Contribution to Messianic Ecclesiology, p. 64.
5 Gregg R. Allison, Sojourners and Strangers, p. 81.
6 Ellen G. White, Education (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1903), p. 15. (Emphasis added.)
7 E. G. White, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 475. (Emphasis added.)
8 Ibid., p. 12. (Emphasis added.)