Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:14-15)
Paul calls the church “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” This tells us, not what the church must be, but what the church is. The significance of this distinction will become clear later, but first we must consider whether the two metaphors are subject to misunderstandings.
Some writers worry that the metaphors “pillar” and “foundation” may give people the impression that the church is the very source and basis of truth. However, the whole of Scripture testifies against this, and so they are concerned to expound the verse in a way that avoids the false interpretation.
Thus it is said that the “pillar” metaphor is made against the background of ancient architecture. A pagan temple, for example, may include numerous ornate pillars that serve not only to support the structure, but to display the riches and glory associated with the deity. Writers appear more worried about the “foundation” metaphor, and suggest that a better translation would be “bulwark” or “buttress.” That is, the church is not the very foundation of the truth, but only its protector.
The problem has been exaggerated. We are not Catholics who try to distort individual words and phrases from Scripture to justify man-made doctrines. We are Christians who respect the whole of Scripture, and read individual words and phrases against the background of the entire holy book. Scripture is a product of divine inspiration, so that individual words and phrases are indeed significant, so much so that entire doctrines may hang upon them; however, these words and phrases do not stand alone, and do not maintain their meanings in a vacuum. Still less are they subject to arbitrary interpretations imposed upon them.
The same apostle who writes that the church is the pillar of the truth also preaches that God is “not served by human hands, as if he need anything.” How foolish must a person be, then, to think that the metaphor here could be twisted to mean that the church is the support of the truth in a sense that the truth would crumble if not for the church? There are some who speak as if the apostasy of men can thwart the plan of God. No, it cannot. I am surely concerned about the state of the church and the spiritual climate of the world, but only as a matter of zeal, and not of fear and worry about the final result. The truth will stand whether or not the church stands. And the church will stand whether or not there appears to be many faithful believers, since Christ said that he will build it, and that even hell will not prevail against it. The metaphor refers to a function of the church, and not to its inherent power. There is no room for misinterpretation.
As for the idea of foundation, the word does not suggest anything like a source or originator. The foundation of a building is not the designer, builder, or creator of the building. It is only the location of which the building is placed. Neither can the metaphor suggest that the church is the foundation of the truth in the sense that the foundation of an intellectual system consists of the first principles from which the rest of the system is deduced. This is because the church itself is not any part of the contents of an intellectual system.
If the metaphor were to suggest an idea like builder or creator, or source, we would need more either from the immediate context or from the background of Scripture to compel this interpretation. This is sometimes present when the “foundation” metaphor is used elsewhere, but the context and background prevents this interpretation here. Paul instructs the Christians to behave in a manner that serves the truth. But if the church produces the truth, then what the church produces is the truth. However, Paul does not define the truth in terms of the church, but he defines the church in terms of the truth. The truth has been revealed by God, and it is fixed. Whether or not a community is the church depends on its relation to the truth.
This addresses one of the most pressing questions that Christians must consider, and they must examine their communities in light of the answer. What is the church to be? There are some who say, “What is the truth?” And their answer is, “Ask the church. It is whatever the church says it is.” This is not the Christian view. Rather, we ask, “What is the church?” And we answer, “God has revealed the truth to us through the Scripture. The church is the community that affirms this truth in common, and that promotes and protects this truth about God and Jesus Christ.”
It follows that any community that fails to affirm, promote, and protect the truth is not the church. If it ceases to support and display the truth like a pillar, and if it does not hold upright and stable the truth like a foundation, then it is not the church. The pillar and foundation of the truth is not what the church must be, or must strive to become, but it is what the church is. In other words, if an assembly is not a pillar and foundation of the truth, it is not a church. No matter what it does – it may bring people together in friendship, it may excel in charity, or it may advocate social justice – it is not a Christian community.
Consider two examples. There are churches that call themselves Christian assemblies, but their official position denies the inerrancy of Scripture, that the Bible is a product of divine inspiration, so that it is accurate in every detail and that it carries absolute authority. These congregations have lost all sense of truth. There is no basis to call them Christian churches. Then, there are some denominations that marry homosexuals, and formally ordain some of them as preachers. These organizations do not function as pillars of the truth, but they attempt to redefine the truth by asserting something contrary to the truth already revealed by God.
The Bible reveals the truth in fixed propositions and doctrines, and defines the church as that which functions as its pillar. These denominations reverse this in their thinking and practice – their fixed assumption is that they are the Christian church, and the truth is whatever they declare it to be, and that it is subject to modification as the opinions of men shift and alter. The sin of homosexuality is significant, and we cannot overlook the fact that these denominations condone it. But the point right now is that their policy is only a result of a more general apostasy, a prior abandonment of the faith, in that they have already turned away from the truth of divine revelation. And because they are not the promoter and protector of the truth, but rather try to invent their own doctrines according to the sentiments of the times, they are no longer Christian churches.
What this means is that all Christians should denounce these denominations and congregations that submit to their policy, and they should be considered excommunicated from Christ’s kingdom. No Christian should support these denominations and churches with any of their time, money, or goodwill, and no Christian should attend their meetings as if they are attending Christian services. Of course, we may speak to these groups as non-Christian assemblies, calling them to repentance and conversion through true faith in Jesus Christ and genuine assent to the truth.
I endorse the idea that we should pursue peace with one another, and that not every doctrinal disagreement should result in an all-out brawl. However, there is a misguided tendency among Christians to seek peace by uniting around a minimum amount of truth. But since when is the faith of Jesus Christ a quest for the minimum? It is, rather, a proclamation of the whole revelation of God, the entire truth about God that he has revealed. It is a quest for the maximum, for a complete understanding, and for all the fullness of God.
It is sometimes suggested that when we consider the legitimacy of a church, we ought to ask whether or not it carries at least “the gospel,” and by that the bare minimum of truth is meant. Even if bare minimum Christianity is still Christianity, it is certainly not good Christianity, and it is contrary to the spirit of the faith to support it. A bare minimum Christian, if there is such a thing, may indeed be a Christian, but let no one take him as a teacher! And a bare minimum church, if there is a such a thing, may indeed be a church, but why should anyone join himself to it?