LIBERTY UNIVERSITY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

A Critique of the Journal Article: The Nature of the Church
By Walvoord, John F.

Submitted to
Professor Kevin Richard in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the completion of the course

THEO 510-B06
Survey of Theology by Mark W. Clark, L26613732
January 23, 2014

Contents

Introduction 1 Brief Summary 1 Critical Interaction 2 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................................4 Bibliography 6 Grading Rubric 7

Introduction: Digging around the archived files of Bibliotheca Sacra (affectionately known as “Bib Sac”) evoked a deep sense of history and legacy. Although my exploration was limited to the broad, colorful screen of my iMac computer, I could almost smell the dusty stacks, piled high in the bowels of Dallas Theological Seminary’s archive rooms. Bib Sac was first published in 1844 and lays claim to being the oldest theological journal in America. The list of past editors stirs my earliest memories in Bible college on the coast of Maine. The theological foundations of my studies there included Lewis Sperry Chafer, John Walvood and Roy Zuck, all prolific writers and former editors of Bib Sac. It was here, in a relatively modern volume: October, nineteen fifty-nine, that I struck pay dirt. The volume I was perusing contained an article entitled The Nature of the Church, by Dr. John F. Walvoord. I was overjoyed and wondered how Muhammed edh-Dhib felt when he accidently discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls in nineteen forty-six? Knowing of the theological and biblical astuteness and veracity of Walvood, I was immediately aware of a deep sense of trust toward the author. As John Walvoord was pastor at Rosen Heights Presbyterian Church in Fort Worth, I can’t help by admire the flexibility of the man. He was no doubt in conflict with the Presbyterian position on dispensationalism and his view of the millennium, yet his pastoral heart found place to teach and encourage even if the flock was not totally aligned with his theology. John Walvood was not only the past president of Dallas Theological Seminary, but a fellow Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary student (Litt.D. 1984)!
Brief Summary: In this article, Walvoord wants to set things straight. He is emphatic that historically, there has been little or no teaching about what the church is, and is not since the second century. He believes that any student of church history will discover a huge emphasis on the church being linked to apostolic authority and little being said about its foundation in Christ. Walvoord explains that the decadent church of the Middle Ages and the Protestant Reformation came the church we now attempt to understand. It is a church founded on tradition and apostolic power, rather than the teachings of Christ. In attempting to clarify what the church is and isn’t, Walvoord quotes Canon F.W. Dillistone, the Dean of Liverpool University: “As Dillistone points out, “No systematic treatment of the doctrine of the Church can be found in the Christian writings of the second century A.D.” Walvoord begins his thesis with a bold statement: “Any intelligent observer of modern Christianity soon becomes aware of the widespread confusion that exists concerning the nature of the church.” The author identifies the problem as a lack of teaching in five areas: the church as the body of Christ, 2) the local church, 3) the unity of the church and the theological problem, 4) the problem of schism and, 5) the problem of unity. These, according to Walvoord are the issues that have led to believers not having a clear understanding of the nature of the church.

Critical Interaction: Jesus made the church, his bride, a priority. He was willing, in fact, to die for her. The Word, in fact, tells us that “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends. (John 15:13)” In this article, the author is quite insistent that those who are members of this body, understand the need to properly grasp the identity and nature of the church. Walvoord points out that one of the members of the body to get mixed up about what scriptures refer to Israel and which refer to the church: “One of the large causes for this is the failure to distinguish the church from the nation Israel. The idea that Israel and the church are essentially the same divine undertaking is a common error which arose principally in postmillennialism and amillennialism.” Walvoord addresses the issue of confusion in the area of the “body of Christ” in contrast to the individual local churches. There seems to be a misunderstanding of scripture that is written to the body of Christ at large and then there are passages written to certain specific churches. Walvoord seeks to clarify: “In the New Testament many local churches arose as a result of the missionary activities of the apostles. In some cases, it consisted in no more than a group of believers meeting at one place. As the church grew, however, the New Testament records that a certain amount of organization evolved. These local congregations were called churches, not because of their organizational character, nor because they constituted a segment of the body of Christ, but because they were a genuine ecclesia, an assembly of believers in one geographic location. Almost fifty references in the New Testament refer to the local church. Such phrases as “the church which was at Jerusalem” (Acts 8:1), “the church which is at Cenchrea” (Rom 16:1), and “the church of the Thessalonians” (1 Thess 1:1), and many similar references give witness to this concept. The reference to churches in the plural as, for instance, in the statement that Paul and Silas “went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches” (Acts 15:41), makes plain that each of the local assemblies was regarded as a separate church.” Walvoord makes a sharp distinction between the nature of these local churches and the body of Christ. He develops this further with comments regarding the messages of Christ to the seven churches of Asia in Revelation. The author points out that the church of Laodicea, the seventh of the churches, is recognized as a local church, but from the words of Christ, it is clear that they are not regarded as members of the body of Christ because of the harsh rebuke “I will spew you out of my mouth” (Rev 3:16). Walvoord pulls no punches in calling the body of Christ to work on unity and separation from the world: “A survey of Scriptural revelation as it pertains to this problem should make evident that there should be no needless division within the organized church. Alongside this evident intention that the unity of the church should be preserved as much as possible, there is however clear-cut testimony in Scripture to the principle of separation from those who are unsaved or from those who are grossly immoral. Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness.” The author wraps up his thoughts with an exhortation for the church of Jesus Christ to avoid schisms. He then makes an appeal for them to find a path of unity other than the ecumenical movement. Walvoord writes: “In view of the fact that there seems little likelihood that there will ever be theological agreement among the diverse elements that now exist within the professing church and in view of the express command of Scripture that a believer should not have fellowship with unbelievers, it would seem that a practical program is called for quite different from that suggested by the ecumenical movement.”

Conclusion: I confess that I had to chuckle to myself in reading Walvoords comments on the coming ecumenical movement. The perception of the slippery slope of ecumenism in 1959 was almost an evangelical McCarthyism. I recall my grandfather, president of one of Canada’s foremost fundamentalist Bible schools, commenting on the new focus of the church: to avoid the evils of cooperative evangelism and ecumenism. Now, his grandson, a former Billy Graham employee, cavorts with Lutherans, Anglicans and Presbyterians as I pastor a church with forty-one nationalities, twenty-five languages and twenty denominations. I guess my attitudes and actions would make Dr. Walvoord squirm. He was one of my heroes. I wonder what he would think of what the church in America has become?

Bibliography
Walvoord, John F, “The Nature of the Church,” Bibliotheca Sacra; A Theological Quarterly 116, no. 464 (1959): 291-302, accessed February 14, 2015

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. F. W. Dillistone, The Structure of the Divine Society, p. 87.
[ 2 ]. John F Walvoord, “The Nature of the Church,” Bibliotheca Sacra; A Theological Quarterly 116, no. 464 (1959): 291-302, accessed February 14, 2015, P. 291.
[ 3 ]. Ibid., 292.
[ 4 ]. Ibid., 295
[ 5 ]. Ibid., 299.
[ 6 ]. Ibid., 301.