When believers allow ministers to bind their consciences with unbiblical rules and regulations, they have allowed themselves to be subject to the misplaced concept of the nanny church. When certain segments of Christians criticize visible churches–rather than individual Christians–broadly for not caring about certain social issues, they have embraced the idea of a nanny church.

With the overturning of Row v. Wade, I have noticed numerous professing Christians posting things like, “Now the church needs to start caring for all of life for those who get pregnant,” or “The church needs to do more than simply denounce the practice of abortion.” I would contend that this, albeit it a well-meaning statement, misses the mark of the God-ordained ministry of the visible church. It is to view the church as a nanny church. It is not the role of the church to adopt. It is the role of individual Christians to adopt. It is not the role of the church to start Christian pregnancy centers. It is the role of individual believers to do so. It is not the role of the church to provide for every woman who conceives out of wedlock. It is the role of parents and the father of the child to provide. This is not to say that the church doesn’t have to collectively come alongside a woman who gets pregnant out of wedlock. However, pastors and congregants alike may denounce the wicked and hellish practice of slaughtering the unborn without having their consciences being unnecessarily bound to adopt or support the unwed in society. There will most certainly be cases in which a young woman does not have the support of parents or the father of her child. However, the ordinary moral responsibility falls on those God-ordained relational structures, rather than on the visible church as the visible church. God places that responsibility on those within the sphere of moral proximity.

The late Dr. R.C. Sproul once recounted a time when he shared a taxi with the great Christian apologist, Francis Schaeffer. At one point, Sproul asked Schaeffer, “’Dr. Schaeffer, what is your biggest concern for the future of the church in America?’ ‘Without hesitation,’ R.C. said, ‘Dr. Schaeffer turned to me and spoke one word: ‘Statism.’ Dr. Sproul concluded,

“Schaeffer’s biggest concern at that point in his life was that the citizens of the United States were beginning to invest their country with supreme authority, such that the free nation of America would become one that would be dominated by a philosophy of the supremacy of the state.”

As much as statism should concern us, there is an equally destructive danger for believers, namely, churchism. By churchism, I do not mean that one can value Jesus’ church too highly. In fact, most professing believers value both the visible church and invisible church far too little. What I mean by “churchism” is the propensity for many to put an unjust burden on the leadership of a particular visible (i.e., local) church to live the Christian life for those within the church. Just as we ought to reject a nanny state, so we ought to reject a nanny church.

Before addressing the peculiar ways in which many today project unjust expectations on the visible church, we should consider the biblical and historical-theological teaching the nurturing aspect of the church in the lives of believers. The Westminster Confession of Faith sums up the role of the visible church for the spiritual lives of believers, when it states,

“Unto this catholic (i.e., universal) and visible church, Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world; and does by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.”

Read More