R. J. Rushdoony’s Doctrine of the Church

The Rev. Brian M. Abshire

“The church is God’s armory for the application of the aspects of God’s image… the church issues God conscription, trains the troops for action and sends them out weekly to conquer in Christ’s name…”

R. J. Rushdoony, Systematic Theology

Secular Humanism, Marxism, Enlightenment Humanism, Atheism, etc., are all inadequate worldviews, arbitrary and inconsistent, and could never have successfully wrestled Western culture from Christendom unless there was something fundamentally flawed in the Church. It wasn’t the faith that was at fault, it was the abandonment of a full Christian orthodoxy and the substitution of man-made religion that has brought us to the brink of disaster. Now it is time to recapture the Biblical vision for what the Church is and what it should do for the glory of God.

R. J. Rushdoony, building on the philosophical and apologetical work of Cornelius Van Til, throughout his life labored to re-establish the Biblical foundation for a Christian social order. Since Rushdoony focused more on the social, ethical and practical implications of a Biblical worldview, during his life he was sometimes unfairly criticized because of a seeming deficiency in his view of the church. The problem of course was not with Rushdoony, but with his critics who failed to see that he simply refused to be drawn into academic debates on irrelevant denominational details while an entire culture sank into judgment.

In his Systematic Theology, Rushdoony addressed two specific problems affecting all theological discussions. The first is a tendency towards reductionism, where in pursuit of clarity and precision, the richness of Biblical faith is reduced to a few articles of faith. A good example of this could be the popular acronym TULIP. Total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement and the perseverance of the saints are vital and essential clarifications of the Reformed doctrine of soteriology (that is, the doctrine of salvation). They were highlighted specifically to counter the errors of Arminianism at the Council of Dordt. But as important as these five precepts are, the Reformed faith is much more than TULIP. Many people who call themselves “Calvinists” don’t have a clue as to what Calvin taught or what the totality of the historic Reformed faith requires. Some apparently believe that simple assent to these five points is a sufficient expression of the Reformed Faith and forget that they are but a summary of a vast, comprehensive Biblical worldview. Biblical faith is MORE than its doctrine of redemption (though agreed, if you lose this aspect, you have denied the heart of the faith).

The second problem attending theological discussion Rushdoony calls “abstractionism” which separates the context of life from Biblical faith to give us some abstract ideas as the essence of the faith. The Westminster Confession and Catechisms are brilliant summaries of basic Christian doctrine. Every committed Presbyterian for example, works to teach his children the Shorter Catechism. But knowing the words, even understanding the words, is not the same as living the words. Impeccable theology does not necessarily lead to a sanctified life. The demons believe and tremble, says James; yet many Christians have essentially confused intellectual acceptance of certain propositions, and an affluent, middle-class value system with holiness and godliness.

Both reductionism and abstractionism can lead to technically correct observations, while missing fundamental truths. This is exactly where most discussion regarding the church begins and ends; endless wrangling over minute details with no clear Biblical guidelines on what precisely one is supposed to do!

Rushdoony notes that a correct church is not necessarily a living church; “people buried in a cemetery commit no actual sins, but they are irrelevant to history.” In the same way, he demonstrated that though the church in Corinth was full of sin, and that they had none of the familiar marks of a church, Paul does not deny them the status of a true church. Corinth, for all its glaring faults, did have one quality lacking in many modern churches: the ability to grow in grace and knowledge. Thus in his development of the doctrine of the Church, Rushdoony is concerned with neither abstractions, nor reductions, but of a vibrant, living faith, inhabiting a vibrant, living Church.

Rushdoony begins by cutting through the confusion caused by terminology. Our English word “church” (or Scottish “kirk) comes from the Greek kyriakos, the “house of the Lord” and therefore refers primarily to both a building as well as the historical institution. It is fair to say that when most Christians hear the word “church” they automatically think “building” or “organization.” Yet, Rushdoony argues that this is a less than satisfactory understanding. The Greek word translated as “church” is ekklesia, which has a far different range of meanings than kyriakos. Ekklesia was used in the Septuagint for the Hebrew qahal, the assembly of the people of God. Thus Rushdoony concludes that the church ought to be understood as “the called people of God in all their work together for the Lord.”

This is a crucial definition and fundamental to everything else Rushdoony says about the church. He does not deny the validity of the institutional church; he merely insists that the Church is more than its buildings, programs or institutions. The ekklesia must not be confused with the kyriakos. Because modern Christians often do not distinguish between these two different concepts, Rushdoony says that loyalty to Christ and his body is often confused with loyalty to a building, institution or denomination. Furthermore, many, many people believe that unless their work is kyriakos related, then it has no religious or spiritual significance. Rushdoony, to the contrary, has a much broader vision: the “church” is the entire body of Christ in all its dominion work. There is no Neo-Platonic division between spirit and matter. All Christian men have a dominion calling; all have important work for the Kingdom to do regardless of their vocation. In Rushdoony’s understanding, the “Church” is bigger than the “church.”

There is often much discussion amongst well-read Christian about whether the Kingdom of God is coterminous with the church. Both British and Continental Reformers actually wrote into their Confessions that the “Kingdom of God is the church.” However, Rushdoony would amplify the word “church” as meaning more than just the kyriakos but also to include ekklesia; the Kingdom is the reign of Christ in every aspect of their work and life which is much, MUCH more than the formal work of the institutionalized “church.” Thus the carpenter shaping wood, the artist before his easel, the civil magistrate in parliament or the scholar in his study, all are expanding the Kingdom as they work diligently and conscientiously at their calling for the glory of God. When they assemble together for formal worship, they bring all these aspects of life to bear in encouraging one another and helping one another to glorify God. The pastors and elders’ function is to equip each of these men for their work of service (Eph 4:11ff).

Rushdoony traces the origin of the church back to the Garden with Adam and Eve in their dominion calling. His view is that the church is not just an after thought or something established to cope with sin but was an essential part of creation. Adam and Eve’s were to exercise dominion over the earth as well as grow in knowledge, holiness and righteousness by means of work and obedience. They fellowshipped with God, heard His commands and acted on them. After the Fall, Rushdoony says that the church has an added task of proclaiming redemption through Christ, but he insists that the initial call in the Garden is still valid. Therefore, Rushdoony concludes that the church is “God’s armory for the application of the aspects of God’s image, righteousness, holiness, knowledge and dominion to every area of life and thought… the church issues God conscription, trains the troops for action and sends them out weekly to conquer in Christ’s name. The church becomes the instrument whereby all things are made new (Rev 21:5).”

Faith and the Church

Rushdoony states that too often the church is defined in terms of its polity; i.e., Congregational, Presbyterian, or Episcopal or practices (as with Baptists), or by its creed or confession. While Rushdoony does not denigrate the importance of any of these, he insists that the Church is nothing apart from Jesus Christ. Correctness on these other points, however good, cannot replace faith in Christ. Obedience to God, the love of God, etc., are all vital and important, but faith is the “frontal grace, the instrumental condition of salvation…”

But faith is not something in and of itself, nor is it of man, it is God’s gift to us. For the church to stress the centrality of faith means that it is not the institutions nor its forms which mark it as a church, but rather that she exists because of something more than herself, which is from God, the grace of faith. Without surrendering its Baptist, Episcopal or Presbyterian nature, Rushdoony states that the more any one of these churches grows in the faith, the less it stresses its own distinctive and the more it emphasizes the distinctives of Christ and His word.

Thus it is faith which Rushdoony insists must mark the church. Yet, too often the church identifies faith with itself and faithfulness to its institutional forms and practices. It seeks conformity rather than faith. Thus Rushdoony concludes that though the traditional marks of the true church are valid, they are limited. A formally correct church is not necessarily a faithful church.

In Rushdoony’s historical analysis, he demonstrates that for centuries, the church saw itself as a necessary institution. They began with a sound proposition, the absolute priority and necessity for the Kingdom of God. Unhappily, as time went on, they came to solely identify the institution of the church with the Kingdom. Thus much of Medieval history can be seen as a battle between Kings and Popes each striving for ultimate power. Popes excommunicated Kings, and Kings captured Popes and made them puppets.

However, central to Rushdoony’s thinking was that God’s kingdom is much more than the Christian Church, state, school, or family. It is even more than time and history. The Church is the body of Christ; His on-going physical presence in the world and the means by which He makes His will made known to His Creation. Furthermore, it is through the church, that the Kingdom of God (i.e., His sovereign rule over every aspect of life) is expanded until the kingdoms of men become the Kingdom of God. Hence His Kingdom is both present (now) and yet coming (future) (Rev. 12:10). Thus the Westminster divines were perfectly correct in saying that the church is the Kingdom of God, just as long as we understand that the church means more than an institution or organization. The church, by proclaiming the requirements for entrance into the Kingdom, therefore can be rightly said to have “the keys to the Kingdom” (Matt 16:19). But the man who opens the gate is by definition distinct and separate from what is inside the gate. The church, through preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and rightly administering the sacraments, opens the door to the Kingdom to the Gentile and unbeliever; the church, through godly discipline, ejects some unrepentant men from the Kingdom. One might even argue that the church explains the rules for living in the Kingdom. But the Kingdom is bigger and greater and more glorious than the gate: and the ekklesia is greater and more glorious than the kyriakos.

Government

Not unexpectedly, Rushdoony develops his doctrine of Church government in the Old Testament. In Deuteronomy 1:9-18, Moses declared that eldership was ordained by God Himself. There had been elders or rulers over Israel from within Israel during the captivity (Ex 3:16). He notes that the office of elder originated in the family. The head of the family was its elder. God thus ordained that the family be the nucleus of government.

He goes on to note that eldership is a pattern of government in a variety of spheres: (2 Kings 19:2, Jer 19:1) e.g., the priests and Levites were ruled by an eldership with their own ranks, there were elders of the city (Deut 19:2, Deut 21:3,6, Deut 21:19, Deut 22:15, Deut 25:9), judges were spoken of as a form of eldership (Deut 19:17-19, 25:1-3, 17:8-11, 16:18-20, 21:2). Moreover there are elders of the people or of the country who made up the civil government (Nums 11:16, 1 Kings 20:7-8, 2 Sam 3:17, 5:3, 17:14-15)

Rushdoony states that in the New Testament, both the synagogue and the church were ruled by elders; an aspect of the church’s continuity with the Old Testament, representing a hierarchical and graded authority. In the Old Testament, every man who was a free and responsible head of a family was an elder (Deut 1:9-18). One elder was elected over every ten families to exercise some sort of government and oversight. Problems too difficult for him were passed on up. There were then elders over fifties, hundreds and thousands. Over and above all, there were seventy elders ruling with Moses (Ex 24:1, Num 11:25).

But rather than go on to argue for one specific type of Church polity over another, as if getting the form right were all that was important, Rushdoony then cuts to the heart of the issue: Biblical government requires that men and families be trained to govern. The basic government is on the family level and all other forms of government rest thereon (cf. 1 Tim 3:1-7 where an elder must be one who first rules his own household well). Rushdoony emphasizes that the free man is thus a governing man. He notes that in the Law; the slave, who seeks security above freedom, cannot be an elder (i.e., ear piercing demonstrated that a slave now belonged to a particular house and was no longer the potential head of a house). Modern men are largely slaves. And if men do not live self-governed lives under God, if they do not exercise dominion in their homes, then the particular polity of a local church is simply irrelevant. Presbyteries made up of feminized men, who seek peace over righteousness, cannot adjudicate problems rightly, or govern churches properly. The same problem afflicts both congregational and Episcopal churches. The real issue is not so much the form of government, but rather its function. And it cannot function without men who are trained to govern first in the home.

Training for Government

Rushdoony notes that the early church met not only in homes, but the qualifications for officers were essentially family virtues (1 Tim 3:1ff). Furthermore, Rushdoony states that the main office, “elder” is the name of the head of a family and the word “deacon” essentially is the name for a family servant. Therefore, Rushdoony concludes that basic training for government in church, state or any other area is essentially within the family. Rushdoony carefully analyses the significance of the first Passover (cf. Ex 12:26-27), where instruction of the children was fundamental to the “sacrament.” The children were required to ask concerning the meaning of God’s Law (Deut 6:4-7, 20-25, Psalm 78:1-8). Hence, the godly man must be responsible for those around and under him. He states that “it is not enough for boys to be trained to be good; they must also be trained to be able rulers of themselves and of their domain under God.” Rushdoony is sometimes misunderstood at this point. He is not saying that the family is everything, or denying the efficacy of the church’s administration of the Word and Sacraments, far from it. But he is insisting that according to the dominion mandate, the explicit instruction and example of Scripture, the family is the beginning point of genuine Christian Reformation. Restoring a consistent Christian civilization does not end with the family, but it certainly must begin there.

Please note the significance of this. There are now many calls from various people for Reformation and Restoration. Broad evangelicals seek to elect the “right” man as President and want to impose a top down reformation by executive fiat. Others want to reform the church first, and essentially state that once the church get it right, all the blessings will flow outward.

Both attempts are premature unless the foundation of any society, the family, is reconstructed first. If Christians managed to impose a “top down” reformation by the State, such an action would inevitably lead to tyranny or revolution. The hearts of the people must be changed first BEFORE they will submit to Christ’s Kingship in the civil realm. A righteous president would find himself at war with an unrighteous congress and electorate. He would either be booted out of power, or have to use tyrannical means to stay in power, against the wishes of the people.

On the other hand, the church cannot be Reformed, unless it has godly men trained in Biblical government (some attempts at “reformation” seem to have more in common with magic than Biblical religion: i.e., if we only get the sacraments right, or the liturgy right, then reformation and restoration will occur). Church government is only as holy as the men who hold the offices. Weak families, produce weak men who can be nothing other than weak elders.

Now it may well be argued that all these are false dichotomies, for all these spheres of government influence and affect the other. But if forced to pick one place to start, then it is clear that all government begins with self-government; and self-government is learned within the family. Strong families make strong churches. Strong churches make strong leaders in science, industry, business, education, and politics. Rushdoony does not undervalue the church in any way, but he is also aware that you cannot reconstruct any institution unless lives are transformed first.

The Assembly

In his section on the Assembly, Rushdoony states that the church, the whole body of Christ called out of the world and gathered together as a holy convocation, has a call to rule. The church is a government, the government of Christ the King. Rushdoony cites St. Chrystom, “the church does not exist in its walls, but its rules; when attending church do not go to the edifice, but to the light, the church is not in the walls and roofs, but in the faith and life.”

Rushdoony emphasizes the importance of local assemblies. The pattern of evangelism in Acts 1 is to reach out first to Jerusalem, then Judea and all Samaria eventually filling the earth. This is same process Jesus spoke about in regards to how the Kingdom grows; it starts small and then expands. Therefore, expanding the reign of Christ begins with the local assembly of Christian men exercising their kingly functions in the community where God has placed them. As the people of God gather together for growth in righteousness and works of dominion, as they both worship and work at their individual dominion callings, and as God gives grace, the world is changed around them.

Rushdoony is careful to note that a local assembly can be as corrupt as a national congress or parliament. He insists however that the local assembly is God’s pattern and that when this form has regenerate, self-governing men, personally ruled by God, then it clearly has great effectiveness and potentiality to transform the rest of the culture.

Ministers

Rushdoony observes that never in the New Testament are ministers spoken of as ministers of the church, our most common usage; rather they are called ministers of God (2 Cor 6:4, 1 Thess 3:2) ministers of Christ (1 Cor 4:1, 2 Cor 11:23, Col. 1:7), ministers of Jesus Christ (1 Tim 4:6), ministers of the New Testament (2 Cor 3:6) ministers of the gospel (Eph 3:7, Col. 1:23). He is careful to note that to make men ministers of the church is to make the church, rather than God, their master.

In fact, Rushdoony makes clear that much confusion results from our misuse of the word “minister.” He argues that the term is best translated as “deacon,” or “servant.” The best understanding therefore of the “minister’s” role is as a servant of Christ, and by direct implication, a servant of Christ’s bride by helping her become what God wants her to be (cf, Eph 5:21ff). The “minister’s” function is to equip the saints for THEIR work of service to the glory of God (Eph 4:11).

Thus to restrict the “ministry” to the pastor is unwarranted by Scripture. The “ministry” is not just for an ordained few, but rather lay upon all. “We cannot do it all ourselves, but neither can we delegate it all. Members of a household have duties to one another.” Therefore Rushdoony calls for a greater vision of the ministry and of the church. The elders and deacons have a ministry, but then so does every other member. The church is one body with many parts. For the body to operate responsibly and effectively, each of the members must fulfill their functions. “The modern attitude of many church members is that the paid staff exists simply to serve them.” This, Rushdoony says, is humanism.

When we examine the modern church, we often find that it is unwholesome in its basic orientation. Churches today compete with one another for membership, with the sine qua non being whoever attracts the most people MUST be doing something right; regardless of whether people’s lives are being changed or not. In the quest for attracting more warm bodies, worship has been reduced to spiritual entertainment, and Christian service means serving the church. Gone are the days when Christians built schools for the poor, hospitals, and offered charitable ministries in the name of Christ. The modern day church is by nature introspective and inbred, with the purpose of the church, to have church! The average Christian often sees the church as an institution whose sole function is to make him feel good and comfortable about himself, rather than as the means by which God extends His reign over every area of life. And both Christians, and the world suffer as a result.

Conclusions:

Rushdoony’s doctrine of the Church is neither radical nor revolutionary, nor did he have some hidden, “familiocentric” agenda as some have accused him. The Biblical church is one that is alive with faith in Christ, trusts in His judgments, grows in grace and knowledge and works at training men in their dominion calling. He refuses to be drawn into fruitless controversies regarding forms and rituals but instead, cuts to the heart of the problems facing the Church in her coming battles.

Briefly stated, Rushdoony sees the church as more than a religious social club, bureaucratic institution, or Fort Apache, holding out until the Lord returns. Instead, the church is the entire body of Christ, made up of all His holy ones, called by God to exercise their gifts in all their dominion callings. He places the emphasis on the work of the local assembly, governed by godly men who have first demonstrated their competence in governing their own families wisely and Biblically.

Though Rushdoony did not live long enough to see it, there is a new generation of Christian warriors rising up right now, dissatisfied with a defeatist religion catering to the sentimental affectations of traditional, business as usual Christianity. Restoring a consistent, Christian civilization will require arming this next generations with weapons that have divine power for demolishing strongholds, taking captive every thought for Christ (2 Cor 10:4-5). And rediscovering how God sees His church is the first step to victory.