I choose ecclesia

Church as we know it in the 21^st century exists as organisation, structure and program.  Take away any one of these three and “church” as we know it largely disappears – whether we are talking about worldwide, named groups (the Roman Catholic Church for instance) or local, community based groups (“<suburb/town> Community/Bible Church” for instance).

People in charge of “churches” in the 21^st century will be looking and working to see that there are programs, there is structure and there is organisational covering or protection in order to establish and maintain legitimacy.

Organisation provides the link with history and historical movements; structure provides oversight and control within organisation; program provides definition and “job descriptions” that fit within the structure of the organisation.

And organisation, structure and program exist and function geographically, politically and commercially.  Each organisation – and its various parts – occupies a location on planet earth, however small; each has its own connection and relationship with the political structures and agendas related to its location, sometimes as an instrument of government policy and legislation; each has its own legal identity permitting and codifying all kinds of commercial activity and relationships.

“Church”, understood in these terms, is traceable historically back through time past Jesus (from whom the AD – BC time-split originates), well into Jewish antiquity, going all the way back to the Israelites’ demand for a king to rule over them instead of God and to their demand for a go-between – a mediator – for their relationship with God, in the persons of Moses and Aaron.

Today’s church is ancient Israel’s “you speak and listen to God for us, on our behalf, and we will listen to you and obey”; today’s pastors and priests are ancient Israel’s “give us a king to rule over us so we can be like the nations around us”.

⌛

But return to Jesus and his band of apostles and you cannot find organisation, structure and program existing and functioning geographically, politically and commercially in anything they did or anything they taught.  Indeed, you will find something quite different altogether.

The “church” organisation of the time committed considerable time, energy and money to hunting down, persecuting and trying to eliminate Jesus and his apostles.  And for most of the first century AD, this persecution only increased.  Most of them, like Jesus, were murdered for their beliefs, teachings and practices even though the most notable characteristic of their lives was love.  The great apostle Paul was for a time one of the murderous persecutors until he was confronted by the resurrected Jesus.

The “church”, since Jesus, has unceasingly claimed to be the only valid inheritor of the things the New Testament describes as belonging to the new covenant people of God.  And it has done so precisely because it IS NOT the valid inheritor.  Look at the things Jesus said about and to the “church” leaders of his day (the Scribes and Pharisees); examine how relentlessly they pursued Jesus until they succeeded in crucifying him; look at how they relentlessly pursued and persecuted Paul (who used to be one of them) and tried to subvert every single thing he did in his obedience to Jesus’ commission to spread abroad the good news of his kingdom; look at how successful they were by the end of the second century AD at corrupting the message and the messengers and imposing their organisation, structure and program geographically, politically and commercially.

The “church” IS NOT the inheritor of Jesus and the apostles; it is the great interloper and the great pretender, claiming things for itself that it has no right to and then, over the centuries, propagandizing the world to its point of view.

There is an inheritor of Jesus; and the apostles, and Jesus himself – along with Paul – were quite clear about it.  Never in that first hundred years did it take the term “church” to apply to itself.  Indeed, it fully and well understood that the term “church” specifically DID NOT apply to it; it applied to Israel and its organisation, structure and program: the house of the Lord and the people culturally attached to that.

The true inheritor of Jesus and the apostles is the “ecclesia” of God, not the “church”.  And those throughout the centuries who have insisted that “ecclesia” translates to “church” have, knowingly or unknowingly, conspired with the interlopers and persecutors to obscure the truth – to obfuscate – in this entire matter.  This is what the great bible translator William Tyndale was murdered for!

The “church” is not the “ecclesia” currently sick and dying from its own corruption and putrification.  It is an imposter; an interloper; a doppelganger.  The “church” is Jesus still dead and buried and decomposing in the tomb; the “ecclesia” is Jesus resurrected – raised to new life.  Sure, “ecclesia” does have (if Paul is to be believed) some spots and blemishes and wrinkles, which are being healed by the on-going work of the Spirit of God.  But who would call the false teaching, the false prophets, the false shepherds, the commercial and legal connivings, the real estate deals done, the millions of lives snuffed out in God’s name, etc., etc., etc. – who would call these things spots blemishes and wrinkles?  Deceivers and doppelgangers!

The “ecclesia” is not an organisation nor any combination of organisations; it is a living organism – indeed, a fully formed and functioning body.  It’s ‘structure’, if one can call it that, is entirely spiritual: ‘living stones’ being built by the Spirit of God into a living temple – the new dwelling-place of God on earth.  And its ‘structure’ has at its heart a five-fold ministry of elders equipping the entire body so that it grows up and into the maturity of Jesus.  And its ‘program’ is each member of the body functioning according to its Spirit-given gifts.

It is geographically located wherever at least two or three are gathered in the name of Jesus; it is politically unaligned and non-partisan because its citizenship is in the Kingdom of God, not in any kingdom of man; it is non-commercial and non-legal as far as this world is concerned because its currency cannot buy worldly goods neither can the world’s currency buy Kingdom goods; and because it operates by grace and trust, not by law.

The “ecclesia” – let me say it again – is a living being, not an organisation.  Consequently, its structure and program is of an entirely other order and cannot adequately be described using terms that apply to organisations that are located geographically, politically and commercially.  One can contrast the two, but not really compare them.

Now, along similar lines, think of “Ministry”.  In like manner, “church ministry” can be traced historically all the way back to the organisation, structure and program of Israel when they refused the Kingship of God and a personal and intimate relationship with Him, choosing instead to have frail men as mediators.

And, like with “church”, the ministry of Jesus and the apostles was profoundly different from (and at times opposed to) the “church ministry” of the day.  For instance, “church ministry” forbids contact with lepers and prostitutes and other undesirables, while the ministry of Jesus and the apostles was directed specifically towards them;  “church ministry” is for the chosen, the elect, the ‘insiders’ whereas Jesus provoked “church” by choosing ‘outsiders’.

In the new covenant, there is one mediator between God and man – the Man Christ Jesus.  Ministry then is as ‘other’ or different as “church” and “ecclesia” are.  Ministry in “church” is work performed within a geographically, politically and commercially located organisation with structure and programs.  Ministry in “ecclesia” is worship of God by Spirit-gifted, born-again people serving one another in clusters of at least two or three, being guided, fed and supported by a circle of elders together discerning the mind of Christ and executing that commission.  Jesus’ commission to his disciples was entirely outward looking; but his commission to elders was to ‘shepherd the flock’; to feed his sheep.

From time to time it may happen that ministry in “church” coincides with ministry in “ecclesia”, but they are still very different things and should not be confused.

What does church look like?  Well church will always look like church and church will always be organisation, structure and program located geographically, politically and commercially.  And it will always be of another order altogether from what Jesus and the apostles sought to establish in the first 70 years after Jesus’ birth.  And time, energy and money spent here is largely wasted.  Sound familiar?

What does ministry look like?  Well church ministry will always look like church ministry as we have seen it from ancient Israel to 21^st century religious organisations, with only subtle changes over time and across cultures.

But the question of real import is what does ecclesia look like?  I have dealt with that question in detail elsewhere.  But it looks nothing like church.

And the following question is, what does ecclesia ministry look like?  Like Acts and the New Testament epistles.

And if there is a historic line of connection from the past to present ecclesia ministry, I suggest it is what the bible refers to as “the remnant”.  There will always be a remnant of faithful people who will not bow the knee to “Baal” or any other interloper or doppelganger.

I choose Ecclesia!

10 Distinguishing Features of Ecclesia

10 DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF NEW POWER: Values

From my reading of New Power, I have collected what I think are the “top ten” distinguishing features of new power.  Essentially these are value statements.

However, before looking at the detail, I want to illustrate something that I believe lies behind these features/values – a ‘how come’ and a ‘what for’ regarding the values.

If you want to build a house and you place an order, what will be delivered?

In Old Power, this is what you’ll get ...

In New Power, this is what you’ll get ...













Distinguishing features:

1.      New power is age-blind

2.      Human beings are innately sovereign

3.      Therefore: self-efficacy; self-advocacy; self-help

4.      Informal, networked approaches to governance and decision making

5.      A special emphasis on collaboration and co-operation

6.      Radical transparency

7.      Quick to join or share; reluctant to swear allegiance

8.      The more light we shine, the better

9.      The power of the crowd

10.  People are 5-dimensional

10 DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF NEW POWER: “church”

From an application of new power values to an iteration or instance of “church” (noting that I distinguish sharply between old covenant (church) and new covenant (ecclesia), I see direct equivalents in the New Testament to these distinguishing features.

However, before looking at the detail, I want to illustrate something that I believe lies behind these features/values – a ‘how come’ and a ‘what for’ regarding the values.

If you want to build a ‘church’ and you set to work, what will be delivered?

 In Old Power (old covenant/church), this is what you’ll get ... (or one of a variety of equivalents)

In New Power (new covenant/ecclesia), this is what you’ll get ...

Distinguishing features:

1. New power is age-blind: “no distinction” whatsoever
2. Human beings are innately sovereign: ceded to Jesus
3. Therefore: self-efficacy; self-advocacy; self-help: “each one has...”
4. Informal, networked approaches to governance and decision making: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.”
5. A special emphasis on collaboration and co-operation: “all must be done...”
6. Radical transparency: see Paul 2 Corinthians 1
7. Quick to join or share; reluctant to swear allegiance: “swear not all” and “committed to one another”
8. The more light we shine, the better: “Let your light so shine before men...”
9. The power of the crowd: see Acts 2
10. People are 5-dimensional: fully human plus the power of the Holy Spirit

When bad things happen to good people

Whoa!  What's this about bad things and good people - and good things and bad people!

Who would deny that “bad things happen to good people”? 

But are we prepared to drop our presuppositions and think again?

“Good” people – who determines that?  Doesn’t it automatically imply that there are “not-good” people or “bad” people?  Who measures that?

There are multiple pre-suppositions – assumptions might be the better word – right there; arguably the most import of which is “I’m not a bad person” – a protest we regularly hear when catastrophes or accidents happen.

What’s the measure of a good person?  And is a bad person just a person who doesn’t pass our ‘good’ test?  Is there an external perspective – something or someone with the authority to measure us all?  If we have a ‘good’ test, what’s in it?  Is a ‘good’ test a bit like the IQ tests – you know: the ones that are so culturally determined that 60% of the world cannot but fail?  If the test is based on a moral code of some sort, which moral code?  And is one better or more authoritative than the other.

But here we are – living as if none of those questions matters; because it’s far easier to just make up rules than ensure we pass the test but others may not.  Then we judge them for not being as good as we are – more specifically, as I am.

“Bad” things – who determines if a thing is bad or not?  What is bad in one part of the world is not bad elsewhere: is that because ‘they’re’ not as advanced or developed or educated as we perceive ourselves to be?  Is there a universal set of morals that does – or can – apply to everybody; if they’ll just submit to that standard (our standard)?

What is the measure of a bad thing?  Is it bad in and of itself or is it bad because it affects things and people badly?  And if we’re just another animal on the planet, are we not just another ‘thing’ to be badly affected – or not?  Is the measure of a bad thing ours to determine or is there some external, abstract standard etc etc etc.

Stop it – my brain hurts already!

Well, if we believe in any kind of accountability (divine or otherwise) or karma or ‘universal justice’, we have no choice but to abandon our guns and grenades and weapons and stop waging war on others.

If I am a free sovereign individual, then so is the person whose eyes I’m looking into.  And if I’m not a free sovereign individual, then I’m just a ‘thing’ that other things happen to and I have no business interfering in other thing’s crap.

I’m fairly certain that COVID-19 organisms are not minding the welfare of each other by telling them in no uncertain terms when they’re wrong or not reproducing or mutating properly – or improperly for that matter.

And for those who are sometime theists and users of the bible, that very bible makes it plain that “when bad things happen to good people” (the title of a book you can find in the stores), IT IS NOT BECAUSE THEY HAVE DONE SOMETHING WRONG – not even in the Old Testament under the old covenant.

It’s either random or it’s not.  If it’s random, we have nought to judge about; and if it’s not random, we still have nought to judge about because that same bible specifically teaches us that God is in control of it all; God has his reasons that we, because of our lack of trust, fail to get or even comprehend often; and we are specifically instructed to not judge.  And the reasons given as to why we are not to judge are a) because we are all in the same boat; and b) we all have a speck or a log in our eye.  “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”

So when we cavort about, pointing the finger, we are assuming that we are better than the one we’re pointing the finger at – and, no matter how much we twist the bible, that is simply not true.  “Let each esteem the other as better than himself” and all.  And then perhaps we could add a bit from the Old Testament.  Prophet Isaiah said:

“Then you will call, and the LORD will answer; you will cry out, and He will say, ‘Here I am.’ If you remove the yoke from your midst, the pointing of the finger and malicious talk, and if you give yourself to the hungry and satisfy the afflicted soul, then your light will go forth in the darkness, and your night will be like noonday.”

And what does Isaiah’s “then” refer to?  God told Isaiah to tell His people this – loudly:

While we’re – with profound hubris – shouting madly about what “the bible says” and what “the world” should do, God is trying to get our attention with a message very much like this, but we’re happily ensconced in our own little world not even aware that the very bible we like to thump our pulpits with is pointing the finger right at us – right now!

A glance to the side might be in order – and take a look at British alternative rock band Jesus Jones.  Here’s a few lines from their “Watching the world wake up from history” song.

Here on youtube: https://youtu.be/MznHdJReoeo




Them’s my words! – they just got to them first.

I was alive and I waited, waited, waited (my Master’s thesis was about waiting for the bus that never comes.  But right here right now?  There’s no other place I want to be – because we’re watching the world wake up from history – and I don’t want to miss a thing.  I saw in that decade where it seemed the world could change, in the blink of an eye.  But that became just a monument and now stands as a sign of the times – pointing to a grand missed opportunity.

Francis Fukuyama some time ago declared “the end of history”.  Now we know with absolute certainty he was wrong.  Just how wrong we’ll have to wait and see.  Will we “snap back”; or will we experience The End of Stupor (Ronald Conway, 1984)?  Either way, there is a new history to be written.

The question remains: will it be written by people with “Eyes Wide Shut” and their heads stuck in a big blue barrel – or by people who know with absolute certainty that there is such a thing as society it’s US.