“Luke writes
Acts to tell us not only that Jesus announced the kingdom, but also that the
promise is being fulfilled. The Church
is part of that promise. To that extent
it is true: Jesus promised the kingdom and God sent the Church. The promise is not being fulfilled by a
single stroke, as it were, but in two steps: first the Church and then the
total fulfilment of the vision. The
Church is nothing other than the place within which and through which the
kingdom is coming into being. It is not
itself the kingdom as if it, itself, incorporated God and were a little bit of
perfection on earth. We know this is not
true. But it witnesses to the vision and
lives by it.”
-- Being the Church Then and Now: Issues from the Acts of the
Apostles
William
Loader (2007)
Some of Loader’s statements are correct if ‘church’ = ecclesia; others are only correct if
‘church’ = kuriakos. Which one is it?
‘The Church is nothing other than the place within which and through which the kingdom is coming into being’...
...is a true statement if by ‘church’ you mean God’s ecclesia. However, if what you mean by ‘church’ is the organisations and institutions of man, it is a very debateable statement indeed. Even at our very best, believers are confusing God’s ecclesia with man’s kuriakos. We need to sever this connection. ‘[The church] is not itself the kingdom’ is a true statement. The kingdom is the whole, ‘the church’ (ecclesia) is a part. However, ‘the church’ (kuriakos) is neither the kingdom nor a part of it. But it is true that some people who are members of kuriakos are also truly members and co-inheritors in ecclesia.
‘[The church] is a little bit of perfection on earth’...
...is a true statement if church = ecclesia, untrue if ‘church’ = kuriakos. Once again, on the subject of ‘perfection’, we have made a total hash of things. In English, we live and work with the idea that perfect = faultless or sinless. In the language from which our English New Testament was translated it doesn’t have that meaning at all. In Greek, perfect = mature, ripe, ready, just right. It does not mean faultless or sinless.
In fact, the New Testament says we are perfect (or at least would be if we moved on from a diet of milk) – because perfect means mature: ripe and ready for use according to the purpose for which we were made. So, in this sense, the ecclesia is a little bit of perfection on earth – if we are on track with Apostle Paul in Ephesians 4:11-13.
“He gave some apostles and some prophets and some evangelists and some pastors and some teachers for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, towards the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God; to a mature man; to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.”
And Hebrews 6:1-3.
“Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith towards God, of instruction about washings, and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgement. And this we will do if God permits.”
If it were not God’s intention that His children grow up to maturity and function as spiritual adults on earth in this life, what is the point of what is happening in these two passages? What is the point of the five-fold ministry that God has given if it is not for maturity (growing up into spiritual adults) as Paul says?
‘[The church] witnesses to the vision and lives by it’...
...is a
true statement if ‘church’ = ecclesia
and false statement if ‘church’ = kuriakos. The vision here in Loader’s article is the
Kingdom of God: “first the Church and then the total fulfilment of the
vision.” God’s ecclesia as Headed by Jesus and ordered by the Spirit indeed
witnesses to the vision and gives itself to living by it – with more or less
success. However, the plain fact is kuriakos – institutions, organisations
and clergy write their own visions and mission statements and then live by
them. In fact, it is most often seen as
a sign of weakness or illness if you don’t have vision and mission statements
and organise and structure yourself accordingly. That’s the kingdom of man – not the Kingdom
of God.
And we cannot simply justify our positions by saying that ecclesia includes kuriakos or that kuriakos
is a part of ecclesia. We do not have the right to do that. Ecclesia
is God’s and He determines who (never what, I might add) is part of it.
If I were to run a telecommunications business with a name
and function similar to Telstra, I do not have the right to claim that it is
part of Telstra. Yet that is precisely
what we do when we claim that ‘the church’ (kuriakos)
is part of His Church (ecclesia). Ecclesia
is prior and primary and it is the one that belongs to God. Indeed, only ecclesia can actually legitimately claim to be kuriakos – which means ‘the Lord’s’; His possession. Our attempts at ‘church’ are confusing to the
world and are the result of confusing what man is building with what God is
building.
Again, let me say I have enjoyed William Loader’s article –
and that of many other teachers in the Body of Christ. But I believe it is time to end the confusion
and choose our words carefully and thoughtfully. ‘Church’ comes from the Greek kuriakos; ecclesia is a different word altogether. William Tyndale died as a martyr for the
faith hundreds of years ago. He was
murdered because he did a translation of the new testament that did not contain the word ‘church’ – because
it is simply not there in the original Greek?
It was King James’ rules for the translation of what we know
as ‘the authorised version’ of the bible that immortalised the idea that kuriakos = ecclesia, squarely against the knowledge, the ministry and the hard
work of William Tyndale.
Our continuing with this confusion tacitly says that we
agree that Tyndale was a heretic and King James got it right. I, for one, definitely DO NOT AGREE!
No comments:
Post a Comment