People in charge of “churches” in the 21st 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.
⌛
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 21st 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!
No comments:
Post a Comment