The Body of Christ

When Paul wrote "you are the body of Christ" (1 Cor 12:27) or "in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others" (Rom 12:5) what did he mean? What exactly is the "Body of Christ"?

We take a lot for granted. For example, in the two places where Jesus spoke about the "church" (ekklesia) we assume we know what He was talking about. It's obvious isn't it? He was referring to groups of people who meet in tidy buildings, in rows of chairs neatly set out; following the same order of services they have since the apostles (4 hymns, 2 readings, an exhortation, prayers, breaking of bread and announcements); with elected arranging brethren, presiding brethren, rostered organists, etc.

Except that's clearly not what Jesus understand by "church"/ekklesia. Even if He was thinking 1800 years into the future His audience obviously couldn't have had that vision in their minds when they heard Him speak of church/ekklesia.

So what did He mean? When Jesus referred (only twice) to the ekklesia He used a word which was used in the LXX Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible to refer to Israel as God's community. It was a word which meant (to a Jewish audience) "the people of God", and it was a word which included the whole community. So in Matthew 18 when Jesus spoke about being reconciled with a brother, He said we should first enlist the help of a trusted friend, if necessary get one or two others involved, and then if really necessary we should get the help of the whole community of God's people in order to be reconciled with a brother.

So we find in the Hebrew Bible that on important occasions when God's people presented themselves before God that they did so as HOUSEHOLDS. Passover was to be kept by the whole household. When the tithe was presented to the Lord the whole household had to be there to eat together "in the presence of the Lord" (Deut 14:22-27). When the Philippian jailer was converted his whole household was baptised and joined the community of God's people (Acts 16:33). The (unbaptised) children of believers are "holy" (1 Cor 7:14).

Scripture is screaming out to us in these verses and elsewhere that God is interested in families, households and communities. The community of God's people includes new converts, those who have passed down the Word of God for generation after generation, parents, their children who are also "holy", single people, the Sunday School, the Youth Group, the elderly with dementia in nursing homes, and all those in the care of God's people. Together they make up the "congregation of Israel", the ekklesia, the community of God's people, the Body of Christ.

House meetings

This message arose out of some comments on an earlier post reviewing Pagan Christianity? by Frank Viola and George Barna.

The authors of this book provide evidence that the earliest churches probably had a maximum attendance of around 35. That is based primarily on archaeological evidence. We know the first century Christians met in homes, we know the kinds of homes which were often used for such meetings, and we know how big they were. These gatherings were limited in size by the homes in which they met. As the Christian community in any area grew they would start new house-meetings.

According to the archaeological evidence, it was not until the early third century that Christians had any special buildings. The earliest identifiable Christian meeting place is the house-church of Dura Europos in modern Syria (pictured is the baptistery of the 3rd-century house church at Dura-Europos, now on display in the Yale University Museum, USA. This is the oldest Christian church ever discovered. The baptismal bath is visible. The surviving frescoes of the baptistry room are probably the most ancient Christian paintings.) It was simply a private home remodelled as a Christian gathering place around AD 232. This house was essentially a house with a wall removed between two bedrooms to create a large living area. This house could accommodate about 70 people (Pagan Christianity? page 14-15).

I don't think Viola and Barna are suggesting that our practice of meeting in special buildings is necessarily "wrong". They are simply saying that we cannot claim to be continuing or restoring a first century Christian practice if we do. The very nature of meeting in halls or special church-buildings affects the kind of meetings we have, and meetings in halls or special buildings have a remarkably different character to meetings held in homes around a meal table.

In my view, much of the intimacy of the early church/ekklesia was probably lost in the shift from homes to special buildings. Certainly the informality, spontaneity and full participation would have been lost as the church went to structured formal services.

Pagan Christianity

Book Review
Pagan Christianity? Exploring the Roots of our Church Practices
by Frank Viola and George Barna

Speak of the paganisation of Christianity to most Christadelphians and their minds are almost certain to go to Easter and Christmas and the claims that they have pagan origins. Some might even be quick to point out that ecclesiastical vestments, adoration of saints, feast days and other elements of Catholic and Orthodox Christianity also have their roots in paganism.

This book however provides startling evidence that most of what Christians do in present-day churches is not rooted in the New Testament, but in pagan culture and rituals developed long after the death of the apostles. Christadelphians will almost certainly be shocked to discover that many of their regular practices had their origins well after the first century. What they cherish as a return to first century Christianity is in fact the accumulation of traditions which have little or nothing to do with apostolic practices.

The authors provide ample evidence that first century Christians met in homes and shared a common meal together. Their meetings were informal and everyone actively participated. Formal structured meetings, buildings specifically for church/ecclesial meetings, a 'sermon' or 'exhortation', even sitting in rows of chairs which all face the front where the 'action' takes place on the 'platform', are all practices which developed much later in Christian history. In fact, the shift from house-based informal meetings around a meal to formal meetings in a special building with a structured 'order of service' took place after the Council of Nicea. Ironically, the same church council which gave us the doctrine of the Trinity also gave us the framework for the modern Christadelphian memorial meeting!

Many ecclesial practices which Christadelphians assume are a 'restoration of first century Christianity' actually have little or no basis in Scripture. The authors of this book provide numerous examples of traditions and practices which originated much later, including the following:

- the earliest believers were baptised immediately after conversion. The practice of 'preparing' people for baptism by teaching them the 'doctrines of the church' began much later.

- the 'sermon' or exhortation is a relatively modern invention. We learn from 1 Corinthians that when the early church came together "everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation ... for the strengthening of the church" (1 Corinthians 14:26). The practice of only one person (always a man) addressing the church/ekklesia began well after the development of a professional clergy and largely as a result of doctrinal conflict (so that the priest/bishop/pastor could indoctrinate the church in orthodoxy, or 'correct doctrine').

- the practice of passing out the 'emblems' as tiny glasses of wine and a morsel of bread began with English Methodism. The earliest church celebrated 'communion' as a full meal, of which bread and wine was only a part. Everyone participated, including unbaptised children.

- 'dressing up' for church/meetings is a Victorian tradition. For centuries Christians wore their everyday clothes to church. There is absolutely no Scriptural basis for the practice of wearing ones 'Sunday best'.

- appointing or electing some brethren to leadership or management positions has no Biblical basis. The first Christians recognised people's gifts and acknowledged mature Christians as 'elders', but no one was given any special authority to 'rule' or 'manage' the church/ekklesia. Christadelphian 'Arranging/Managing Brethren' are simply a variation of the pagan practices which produced a professional 'clergy'.

I recommend this book to anyone who is serious about examining the practices of the first century Christians. You will certainly find it challenging in places. You may still wish to hold on to cherished traditions, but will have to confess that they are just that - traditions - and have no Biblical basis. I doubt very much that after reading this book anyone will continue to claim that Christadelphian meetings and structures are a 'restoration of first century Christianity'.

But this book is not primarily about tearing down cherished traditions. It provides valuable insights into the beliefs and practices of the first communities of Christians and is a useful resource for anyone wanting to know what church/ekklesia meant to the earliest disciples. It encourages a return to the simplicity of New Testament Christianity and to a fully functioning body in which all believers play an active role.

Healthy church life

The Australian National Church Life Survey published an interesting list of 12 core qualities of healthy churches.

Faith and Worship
1. An Alive and growing faith
2. Vital and nurturing worship
Our Life Together
3. Growth in belonging and involvement
4. An active concern for those on the fringe of church life
5. Care for young people
Community Connections
6. A focus beyond ourselves
7. Serving the wider community
8. Discussing faith and inviting others to church
9. Integrating newcomers
Vision and Purpose
10. A clear owned vision for the future
11. Openness to new possibilities
12. Empowering and inspiring leadership

How does your church/ecclesia rate against this list?

What's in a name?

This week I came across a Christadelphian meeting place quite by chance as I was driving along a road I have not been on for quite some time. It wasn't the building which caught my attention. In fact, the building was stark and uninviting and I initially thought it was an industrial site. However, the sign caught my eye.


I guess I was initially somewhat surprised to see a Christadelphian meeting place described as a "Bible Learning Centre", as I haven't come across this before. It got me to thinking about how this name was obviously chosen because that is the main emphasis of this ecclesia - in other words, what mostly goes on here is learning about the Bible.

Interestingly, I also recently visited an ecclesia which has a very different sign. This meeting describes itself as the "Pine Rivers Worship Centre". This tells me that the main focus of this ecclesia is worship.


Do the different names tell us anything about any possible differences between these two ecclesias? I think so. I must say that I have actually visited one (the "worship centre") but not the other, so what I'm writing here is mostly just my impression from the sign.

Apart from the fact that the "War with Russia is Inevitable" sign is a dead giveaway (to a Christadelphian) that this is a Logos ecclesia (does any other kind of ecclesia flog this prophetic dead horse?), the emphasis on "Bible learning" tells me that for this ecclesia knowledge about the Bible would be the most important thing to them. On the other hand, to the folks at the "worship centre" how they worship the God of the Bible is presumably the most important thing to them.

The two signs tell me that one ecclesia is interested in matters of the head ("learning") while the other is more focussed on matters of the heart (as worship involves the emotions as well as the intellect). One ecclesia would emphasise getting their facts right, while the other would want to be in a right relationship with the One they worship. The first might help me to know about God, but the second might help me to actually get to know God. If I was looking for salvation I might get the impression from one sign that there was stuff I had to know (and with "learning" and "seminars" I might wonder about whether I would have to sit for an exam), while the other sign suggests that I'm likely to find a nurturing environment ("caring and sharing") with more group support and the potential for friendships and relationships.*

One sign tells us that war is inevitable (and to most people this is a bad thing, although the sign leaves us wondering if the people who run the seminars here think this is good or bad) while the other sign tells us that they are about "caring and sharing". One promises death and destruction, the other offers hope.

One sign tells me that the Bible contains unpleasant information (war is inevitable) while the other sign tells me that there are people who care about me (and my kids). The people at the worship centre have obviously found something which they think is good, which is why they want to worship the One who has shown them "the way, the truth and the life", and why they want to share it with me. I'm not sure why the other folks are telling me that a war is coming. Are they trying to help me avoid it (but can I avoid it if it's "inevitable"?) or are they prophets of gloom and doom? I wonder if they have long beards and wear signboards like the guys in the cartoons ("The end is nigh!")?

Neither of the two signs use many words, but in their choice of words they tell us a great deal about the different groups that meet there.


* Because I do know about Logos ecclesias - and was actually raised in one, so I know a great deal about them - I know that this ecclesia would believe that you must have all the right beliefs, down to the details, in order to be saved. Correct knowledge is a life and death matter to them, so if you get the slightest thing wrong then you would be unwelcome there.

50 years of the Australian Unity Agreement (16)

What is 'fellowship'? (8)

How can we make fellowship "just happen", or what can we do to facilitate it?

Now that we've looked at what happened in the New Testament churches when they got together I'd like to make some suggestions, based on the first century model, for Christians in the twenty first century.

It seems that meeting together over a meal was a central part of the fellowship of the earliest believers. This carried on the 'table fellowship' practices of Jesus, and also 'called to remembrance' the last supper. While sharing communal meals is a good way to facilitate the building of strong healthy relationships, I'm not suggesting that's all we should do. We learn from the Corinthian experience that even though they carried on the tradition of a shared meal it degenerated into something which Paul said was "not the Lord's supper". It also didn't take long for the church to replace this meal with a token or 'symbolic' meal, consisting of a morsel of bread and a sip of wine. The next step was to 'sacramentalise' it and to demand that the bread and wine should only be 'administered' by an ordained priest. The meal known as the Lord's table had progressively shifted from a full meal which was shared with family, friends and those who had been marginalised by society but were now invited to the kingdom of God, to a religious rite which was tightly controlled by those who ruled the churches.

The shift from a meal to mere symbols of one also coincided with a shift from grace to legalism in the church. God's grace was once celebrated as generous, abundant and overflowing. It later became something which the church-rulers tried to control and 'administer'. The morsel of bread (later to become a mere 'wafer' in the Catholic church) and the sip of wine also characterised how the church had become mean as it became legalistic.

To restore the meal to a central place in the gathering of believers might go a long way towards restoring the type of fellowship which was experienced in the early church, but would not guarantee it. There may also be other ways of facilitating this type of fellowship, with or without the communal meal. The following ideas are simply suggestions.

• One of the features of a shared meal is that everyone participates in it. If we want to facilitate fellowship we have to encourage participation. I'm not suggesting that we simply find jobs for people to do (such as doing a prayer or reading, 'preparing the emblems', playing the organ), but that we structure our gatherings in such a way that everyone participates as fully as they would like. Paul obviously had this in mind when he said "When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church" (1 Cor 14:26). It's also probably what he had in mind when he wrote "Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Eph 5:19-20. See also Col 3:16-17).

• To have this kind of full participation gatherings also need to be interactive. It would be almost impossible in a large group to structure a programme (or 'order of service') where everyone is able to contribute with a hymn/song or a word of instruction. Imagine an ecclesia with 100 members all prepared to give an exhortation or sing a song! To have the kind of interaction which encourages full participation would mean that the structured, formalised, religious 'service' would have to give way to something which is fluid, dynamic, spontaneous and full of surprises. Ecclesias would have to decide if they wanted a formal service (like the liturgical churches Christadelphians so often criticise), or something closer to the experience of the first century believers.
  

• The motivation for any gathering has to be the spiritual growth of everyone participating. It's not good enough to simply encourage attendance and assume that just by being there everyone will get something out of it. Gatherings of the church should be so that the whole body is fed and nurtured and enabled to grow.
  

• In larger groups that means getting to know people who are used to sitting quietly, always behaving themselves, never ruffling feathers; the people who never speak up or express an opinion, and certainly never oppose anything; the kind of person who is always there, and because of that we assume they must be getting something out of it. It's possible that some of these people are dying on the inside, not getting the kind of food they need for spiritual growth, but desperately hoping that if they keep turning up one day something miraculous will happen and they will find what they need.

• Of course, it's equally possible that we don't really know the noisy people either. We make assumptions about the people who always have something to say, who always have an opinion (right or wrong), who seem so confident in their knowledge and understanding of the ways of God. We can assume that because someone gives good exhortations they must be right with God, that their spiritual needs are being met, and that their main purpose is to feed others. It's easy to overlook the needs of noisy people. The noise might be a cry for help, disguised as self-confidence; or it might be a cover-up for something that is desperately wrong and needs sorting out. We will never know, unless we get to know them personally.

• Gatherings of believers must promote relationship-building. Sitting in the same pew, or simply shaking a hand, does not constitute 'fellowship'. There has to be time spent together getting to know each other and talking about life in general. There will have to be opportunities for crying on shoulders, sharing a laugh, passing around photographs, and talking about work.
  

• We mustn't forget, however, that our objective is not simply to be friendly and to get to know people (important though that is). We need to help people to connect with God, and to learn from their encounters with God. We need to share on a deeper, more intimate, spiritual level. The friendliness and relationship-building I mentioned in the points above are steps towards intimacy between fellow-believers and with God. But before we can ever develop that kind of intimacy we have to develop trust. In my experience, I have found that many Christadelphians have stopped trusting each other. The dreadful ecclesial fights that have gone on for generations have been one of the main causes of this loss of trust, but in a vicious cycle of mistrust we have learned that arguments lead to mistrust, and mistrust leads to misunderstanding and yet more fighting. The road back will be long and slow, and needs a great deal of prayer and patience.

Dan Brown was right

Ever since Dan Brown wrote his popular novel The Da Vinci Code in 2003 there has been a great deal of criticism and controversy in a proliferation of books refutting, rebutting and reviewing his claims. Evangelical Christians and Catholics have both been vocal in pointing out the inaccuracies and historical errors in the book, although possibly for different reasons.

These subsequent books have debunked many of the myths in The Da Vinci Code. For example, a substantial part of the plot of Brown's book is based on the claim that "The Priory of Sion" was founded in 1099. In fact, the 'Priory' didn't exist before 1956.

While there is a brass line running north-south through the Church of Saint-Sulpice in Paris, it is not a part of the Paris Meridian, as claimed in the book. The Paris Meridian actually passes about 100 metres east of it. The line is instead more of a gnomon or sundial/calendar, meant to mark the solstice and equinoxes. The book also claims that at the explicit demand of French President François Mitterrand, the Louvre Pyramid in Paris was constructed with 666 panes of glass. The pyramid actually contains 603 diamond-shaped and 70 triangular panes of glass, totalling 673. And Mary Magdalene isn't buried beneath the pyramid.

The claim that Rosslyn Chapel was built by the Knights Templar is also false. It was actually founded by Sir William St Clair, third Earl of Orkney and Lord of Rosslyn, and its construction began in 1470, long after the Knights were suppressed.

In fact, there are so many historical and geographical errors in this book it is good to be reminded that it is, after all, a work of fiction (and not a particularly good one either, in my opinion). No one should take its claims seriously.

However, there are a few things which Dan Brown got right (but not many).

First, he tapped into a widespread interest in the community in matters of faith and religion. A lot of people are interested in the historical Jesus and in His teachings. This interest is also reflected in the substantial number of books about Jesus and early Christianity which have gone on to become best-sellers since the publication of The Da Vinci Code.

Second, and perhaps even more noteworthy, Dan Brown realised that while there is an interest in Jesus and matters of faith generally, an enormous number of people do not trust the church to interpret such things for them. It seems, in fact, that they trust a fiction-writer more than they do the institutionalised church. Of course, Brown profited substantially by writing a book which tapped into the community interest in Jesus while at the same time further eroding the credibility of the church. This was actually a great deal more clever than anything in the book.

Third, Brown realised that there was a watershed in the development of Christianity in the fourth century, and that Christianity took a significant change of direction. Two significant landmarks in this development followed the conversion of the Roman Emperor Constantine (272-337 AD) to Christianity. By the Edict of Milan in 313 AD he legalised Christianity and made it the preferred religion of the Roman empire. Then, in 325 AD the Emperor himself presided over a council of Christian Bishops called the First Council of Nicaea which was held in Bithynia in modern-day Turkey. This Council set the church on a new course which was to irreversibly change the way Christians thought of their founder, and the way the teachings of Jesus Christ would be interpreted and applied.

Although Brown made some historical errors about Constantine and fourth-century Christianity, he at least realised that there was a change of direction after Nicaea. But he missed the main issue completely. The key to understanding what went wrong at Nicaea lies in understanding why the debate about the divinity/humanity of Jesus was important to the Emperor of Rome, why it was a political issue (more than a theological one), and why the victors at that particular Council sought to destroy their opponents and eradicate their writings and teachings. It had everything to do with power and politics and had nothing to do with Mary Magdalene.

To put it simply (something Brown didn't do) Christianity has been distorted by its neglect of the actual figure and teachings of Christ. It seems that a lot of people intuitively know this, and therefore do not trust the church to tell the truth about Jesus or faithfully interpret His teachings.

Brown's alternative, however, is sheer nonsense.

I believe that the success of books like The Da Vinci Code have created an opportunity for us to teach the same message which Jesus taught. Jesus didn't come to build a church. He didn't come to do three days work. He came to prepare people for His Kingdom. His message is surprisingly simple, and if we remove the clutter which the church added to His message, and take away the church's authoritarian structures and trappings of power, the teachings of Jesus are also amazingly attractive.

Jesus was undoubtedly an interesting speaker. Large crowds followed him, sometimes travelling long distances and going without food so they would not miss a word. His audience were impressed by the way in which He taught, as well as by His message and His unique personality. The reason He drew large crowds was a combination of what He taught, who He was, and how He taught. If only we could re-focus on His message and methods, and disconnect it from 'doing church', I believe that more people would be interested in looking at the actual teachings of Jesus.

Jesus walks into a bar ...

There is an interesting article in today's Sydney Morning Herald by journalist Barney Zwartz.

Titled "Jesus walks into a bar ..." the article refers to "an extraordinarily diverse and fast-growing Christian movement catering to the multitudes who reject the institutional church but want to follow its founder, Jesus Christ."

It goes on to say

They meet in cafes, clubs, homes, halls, parks or galleries. Rather than "church", they may meet as families, students, businesspeople or surfies. They may be affiliated to mainstream churches or they may be entirely independent. Most are committed and young.

The article quotes Dr Ruth Powell of the National Church Life Survey who says:

Many disenfranchised people under 50, the generation that left the churches, say they still want to follow Jesus, and know they still need others to help them, but have to find a new way, new structures. So all sorts of variants are happening under the radar. They are difficult to spot.

We then read about groups meeting for discussion or Bible study in cafes, clubs, pubs and other venues. Some of these people are new to Christianity while others are disenchanted with church although they still believe the teachings of Jesus are true.

Towards the end of the article we are reminded about Jesus' advice not to put new wine into old wineskins, or the wineskins burst, costing both wine and skins. Rather, put new wine into new wineskins.

I personally found this article to be very interesting and challenging. In fact, just before I read today's newspaper I sent an email to a friend saying:

As I see it one of the main reasons the Gospel as Christadelphians understand it isn’t more widespread is that it has been presented rather negatively. What I mean is, instead of saying “no one burns in hell” Christadelphians tend to preach “your loved ones aren’t in heaven” - mmm ... that would turn anyone off right away. And instead of preaching “Jesus was one of us” Christadelphians tend to go about by knocking those stupid churches that teach a lot of rubbish about 3 gods. That would hardly endear them to anyone. See my point?" I made the comment that "I reckon we need to find a way of saying what we believe in a way that’s not only positive, it’salso relevant. Then we need to find the right vehicle to communicate that message.

Well, as an out-of-church Christian myself I'd be interested in hearing your comments about meetings in cafes and pubs, and what is the best way of reaching people with a Gospel that's relevant to their lives. If you'd like to make a comment about that you can post a message on the Truth Alive message board, or send me an email.

I will build my church (7) - orthodoxy and orthopraxy

July was a particularly busy month for me and I didn't get to post anything on my blog at all. However, I'm in the process of going through a career change and this is currently enabling me to have some more free time and I'm hoping to be able to write more frequently in the future.

To fully know Jesus, and to know what Christianity is really about, involves active participation in community life and through developing relationships with other people, and not simply by learning propositional truths or facts about Christianity (even if we affirm there are propositional truths about Christianity). Christianity is not an idea - it's a way of life.

Jesus said "by this shall men know that you are my disciples, that you love one another" (John 13:35). He didn't say "the most convincing evidence of Christianity is fulfilled prophecy" or "people will know you are my disciples if you teach all the first principles simply yet thoroughly". What He said was, the only way to show people that you my disciples is to show them. We are called to live His teachings - to love one another.

Our best apologetic (and also our worst!), is our behaviour. Our behaviour towards each other can either attract people to the teachings of Jesus, or repel them. Bad behaviour can not only turn people away from the church, but also from the teachings which the church is supposed to put into practice. There are many people in the world who won't ever open a Bible because they look at Christians and don't like what they see.

I was interested to see that I was recently quoted in Anthony Buzzard's "Focus on the Kingdom" magazine (June 2006):

“Practical teaching without sound theology is as impoverished as sound theology without practical teaching. The New Testament doesn’t make the distinction between orthodoxy [correct doctrine] and orthopraxy [good practice] that we often do, nor is there any hint in the Scriptures, as far as I can see, that God will forgive bad behavior more readily than poor theology, or vice versa. We need to teach them both and teach them well.”

"I will build my church" (6) - the church, the kingdom and DTBR

For the unitiated DTBR means "doctrines to be rejected" and refers to those clauses in the various Christadelphian statements of faith which define the faith "negatively" i.e. they are doctrines Christadelphians do not believe. In the Birmingham amended statement of faith, for example, clause 12 of "Doctrines to be rejected" says "That the Kingdom of God is 'the church.'"

In other words, Christadelphians reject the doctrine that the Kingdom of God is 'the church.'

As with many of the DTBR this statement stands alone without any explanation or clarification and has led to enormous confusion. Note that it does not say that Christadelphians reject the notion that the church is the Kingdom of God, but rather that the Kingdom of God is 'the church.' That might sound like pedantry, but it's an important distinction which many Christadelphians have noted.

In other words, the statement of faith rejects the view that any and all references to the Kingdom of God in Scripture are referring to the church; but that is not the same as saying that the church is the Kingdom of God. It's like the difference between saying "the ocean is made of water" and "this is water, therefore it's part of the ocean". The church can be part of the Kingdom of God, but the Kingdom of God does not comprise only the church.

Confusing? It sure is. That's one reason why many Christadelphian ecclesias these days don't include the DTBR in their statement of faith - they raise more questions than they answer.

However, one of the casualties of this awkward way of defining "the truth" both positively and negatively (i.e. "Truth to be received" and "Doctrines to be rejected") is that it has led to confusion on several of the DTBR. They say what Christadelphians don't believe without necessarily saying what they do believe about the matter. Some people mistakenly read clause 12 as meaning that the church is not part of the Kingdom of God, and therefore react against any suggestion that the Kingdom has a present reality which is manifested in the church.

But Jesus came to establish the Kingdom, and to build His church. He called people to live in community as the people of God, now and in the future. The kingdom is "now" as well as "not yet" - it has a present reality, and a future consummation.

The church, the assembly of (new) Israel, the holy nation, the people of God, exists today as the first stage of the Kingdom of God.

The teaching of Jesus about this is so clear that the only reason I can think of why so many Christadelphians have missed this important truth is that they have been conditioned by this confusing and awkward negative clause in their statement of faith which steers them away from thinking in any terms which might identify the church with the Kingdom.

The church is made up of Kingdom-people, living Kingdom-dynamics. They live not only in expectancy of the Age to Come, but they are empowered, enabled and energised by the powers of the coming age to live a Kingdom-life today.

"I will build my church" (5) - the church and the kingdom

I commented in an earlier post that Jesus hardly ever talked about "church". What Jesus talked about repeatedly was the Kingdom, and it's not until we get to Acts that the word church/ekklesia is used as the usual way to describe the people of God.

And when Jesus talked about the kingdom, what He often spoke about was relationships and living in community.

In a post about Jesus' Gospel of Grace I wrote this about the Matthew 13 Kingdom-parables:

Matthew groups several parables together in a collection of stories beginning with the words “the kingdom of heaven is like …” (Matthew 13). An interesting thing about these parables is that none of them speak specifically about the kingdom as our reward or of a kingdom in the way we might think of one: as a nation or country. In fact, they don’t seem to be speaking about a future kingdom at all, but describing how the kingdom is preached, how it begins, and the characteristics of the people who respond to the kingdom-message, the citizens of the kingdom. In fact, Jesus says almost nothing about the future kingdom after His second coming.

In another post about Jesus' Kingdom-parables in Matthew 13 I wrote:

While the parable of the wheat and tares reveals how the kingdom co-exists with evil in the world, the parable of the fish in the net reveals how both good and bad people exist together in the community of people who have been “caught up” by the good news of the kingdom. The Jews expected the Messiah to destroy all the godless nations and gather together a holy people. But Jesus came “not to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17) and brought together a group of people who were rejected by society. Rather than destroying these “godless” people, Jesus called them into His kingdom. His invitation went out to all kinds
of people, and the “net” caught up all sorts of people. Sorting out the good from the bad must await the last day, when the kingdom will become a perfect community.

Immediately after writing that "Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom" (Matt 4:23) Matthew immediately launches into his account of the sermon on the mount (chapters 5-7). At the heart of this sermon is the message to love our enemies and to be all-inclusive. The creed of Jesus, based on the creed of Israel, is this:

"The most important [commandment]," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." "

(Mark 12:29-31).

The sermon on the mount encapsulates much of the ethical teaching of Jesus. Here, and in many of the parables, stories and sayings, Jesus teaches about living in relationship with others, friend and foe. But His message was not just about getting on with people: His primary concern was about building a community of people whose relationships with each other are modeled on and flow from the example of God Himself in His dealings with His people. Jesus Gospel of Grace, for example, was about acting graciously to others in response to God's grace to us.

In preaching about the Kingdom Jesus taught about forgiveness, reconciliation with others, friendship and living in community. The Kingdom of God consists of people who are living these Kingdom-dynamics. Even stories which are specifically described as parables "of the Kingdom" are actually about God's inclusiveness, and the "righteous" and "sinners" co-existing together. They emphasise the diversity of people in the Kingdom, and the acceptance of people rejected by society (and by religious leaders). The Kingdom preached by Jesus is about justice for the disenfranchised, and the integration back in to the community of the outcasts.

This is the new Israel - the restored, rebuilt people of God. A community of God's people as God intended it to be.

Jesus taught that this new Israel, the Kingdom of God, the assembly of God's people, would come in two stages. Like the prophets of Israel He taught about the Age to Come, and taught His disciples to pray "Your Kingdom come" (Matt 6:10). But He also taught that the power of this coming Kingdom was breaking in to the present age - "the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Matt 12:28). The writer to the Hebrews picks up the point and speaks of believers as "those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age" (Hebrews 6:4-6).

The "now" kingdom reality is a "taste" of the "not yet" final consummation in the age to come. The citizens of the Age to Come are living now as the community of God.

"I will build my church" (4) - the church in Hebrews

The writer to the Hebrews was writing to a similar (or same) group of Jewish Christians as was Matthew. It's significant that the sole mention of the church/ekklesia in Hebrews is in the context of comparing and contrasting the assembly of Israel in the wilderness and the community of the new Israel.

After writing of Israel gathered at Mt Sinai, he goes on to say:

"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect ..."

(Hebrews 12:22-23).

This supports the interpretation that on the lips of Jesus the word "church/ekklesia" was a reference to the community of Israel, which He would restore. We need to understand this word in its Jewish context, not from its Greek origins.

"I will build my church" (3) - the church in Matthew's Gospel

As noted earlier, the only references to the word church/ekklesia on Jesus' lips are two places in Matthew's Gospel.

Before looking at them, we should ask "why Matthew"? In other words, why didn't Mark, Luke or John use the word in their accounts of the Lord's life? To answer that, we need to understand that each Gospel-writer was writing to a different audience, and their language and choice of sayings, stories and incidents in the Lord's life reflect the language, backgrounds and interests of their particular audience as well as telling us something about the writer himself.

Matthew wrote for an audience of Jewish Christians. He quotes frequently from the Jewish Bible - the Law and the Prophets - in a way which indicates that his audience was familiar with it. He starts his account of the life of Jesus by establishing Jesus' pedigree, and His claim to the Kingship of Israel. Matthew writes to people who are familiar with offering sacrifices in the Jerusalem Temple (Matt 5:23-24), and possibly still did at the time of writing. Of the four Gospel writers it is only Matthew who records these words of Jesus: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matt 5:17). His audience had been raised on the Law and were very sensitive to any suggestion that it was no longer relevant. In fact, it's almost certain that Matthew's audience was Jewish Christianity, as distinct from Gentile Christians. They identified more closely with Peter and James than with Paul. They believed in Jesus as the Messiah of Israel while still maintaining their Jewish customs and culture. Jewish Christianity was quite distinct from Greek, Roman or African Christianity and its likely that each had their own customs, traditions and practices.

So when we read the word "church/ekklesia" in Matthew, we should realise that Matthew is using this word in the way the Jewish Christians would have understood it. The word ekklesia literally means an assembly, and Stephen used this word in Acts 7:38 when referring to the assembly of Israel in the wilderness. So when Jesus was talking about winning back "a brother who has sinned against you" He says to first speak with him one-on-one, and if that fails to then take one or two others, and if that fails then "take it to the assembly" (Matt 18:15-17). He is saying that in order to bring about a reconciliation we should involve the whole community if necessary. Now to Matthew's audience that "assembly" may well have been the local synagogue, the gathering-point for much of the life of the community. At the time the words were spoken there was no "church" in the sense of a Christian meeting, and the word would have been an anachronism in this sense. Matthew's "church" was the local community, probably assembled in a synagogue.

Stephen's use of the word ekklesia to describe Israel (Acts 7:38) makes use of the Greek word used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) to translate the Hebrew word for the assembly of Israel. Ekklesia was understood in its Jewish sense, not a Greek one.

To Stephen, and Matthew, the church/ekklesia was Israel.

When Jesus said to Peter "on this rock I will build my church/ekklesia/assembly" (Matt 16:18) He was referring to the Kingdom of God about which He was preaching. He was using Old Testament language to refer to the assembly of God's people and was drawing on Prophetic language which described Israel as a tent or building which had collapsed and which would be restored by the Messiah. James used the same Prophetic language at the Jerusalem Council:

"Brothers, listen to me. Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

" 'After this I will return
and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'
that have been known for ages.

"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God."

(Acts 15:13-19).

The "assembly" which Jesus said He would build was to be the restored ruins of David's fallen kingdom. It was to be a new Israel, made up of both Jews and Gentiles.

Jesus use of the word ekklesia in Matthew's Gospel refers in one instance to the local contemporary community assembly in Israel, and in the other to the new assembly of God's people which He would establish. It's prophetic language - Kingdom language. There is no hint in either place that Jesus has in mind an institutionalised organisation which would become known as "the church".

"I will build my church" (2)

Nearly six months ago I began a series on this theme, but only got as far as the first post.

I plan to take it up again, so here is a brief overview of what I plan to write about.

Have you ever wondered why Jesus hardly ever talked about "church"? In fact, the word church occurs only twice in the Gospels, both times in Matthew. What Jesus talked about repeatedly was the Kingdom, and it's not until we get to Acts that the word ekklesia/church is used as the usual way to describe the people of God.

I'd like to explore what Jesus meant by "church" when He said "I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18).

• What exactly did Jesus intend to build?
• Is this reflected in the way anyone actually does church?
• Is it reflected in Christadelphian ecclesias?

This series will also tie together some threads from the series I've written about the characteristics of Christian leaders (i.e what leadership means in the church Jesus is building) and the earlier posts on the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Lord's table.

House church "heretics"

Matt Green of Ministry Today has commented on George Barna's Revolution released last year and his controversial vision of the future that sees 70 percent of the church worshipping in non-traditional settings such as house churches within the next 20 years.

He noted that an argument against the house church movement popped up in a recent article in the Washington Post, where it is suggested that house churches are more vulnerable to heresy, because they lack the accountability of established churches and denominations.

Matt Green writes:

The Reformation was a movement of doctrinal purification that emerged from the decay of institutional heresy. Apparently the strong "leadership" of generations of popes, bishops and priests was inadequate to protect the church from doctrines and practices so bizarre they would be considered downright cultish by today's standards. An indulgence anyone? In fact, as many would argue, the leaders were the ones who concocted these abberations to begin with! It was when the exclusive right to interpret the Word of God was pried from the grasp of clergy that the laity discovered that they had been duped. Then, like now, the church is not in need of more leaders, it's in need of more readers - believers who will embrace the responsibility of their own spiritual health and stop subcontracting it to paid clergy. However flawed, the house church movement is one attempt to correct this imbalance.

Well, those of us who believe that the Gospel needs to be rescued from institutional Christianity would find agreement with that.

Green goes on to say:

No, house churches are the least likely seedbeds of heresy. In fact, they are the natural offspring of the Reformation's cry: Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda ("The church reformed and always to be reformed"). As with any renewal movement, there will be pockets of excess and room for correction. For instance, in the coming years, the house church movement will have to tackle challenges of elitism, leadership, accountability and - of course - heresy. But like the rest of the Body, they won't be facing these alone (see Matt. 18:20).

My favourite comment in his article is this:

"... doctrine (like political power) should not be preserved by an ecclesiastical elite. It must be articulated, taught, transmitted and understood by the laity."

"I will build my church"

Have you ever wondered why Jesus hardly ever talked about "church"? In fact, the word church occurs only twice in the Gospels, both times in Matthew. What Jesus talked about repeatedly was the Kingdom, and it's not until we get to Acts that the word ekklesia/church is used as the usual way to describe the people of God.

I'd like to explore what Jesus meant by "church" when He said "I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18).

• What exactly did Jesus intend to build?
• Is this reflected in the way anyone actually does church?
• Is it reflected in Christadelphian ecclesias?

I may not actually post very much on this over the holidays, but when I do it should also tie in with what I'm posting about the characteristics of Christian leaders (i.e what leadership means in the church Jesus is building) and the earlier posts on the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Lord's table.

God speaks to our hearts (2)

When we are led by the Spirit God sometimes asks us to do 'unpleasant' things - things which are contrary to our natural inclinations. That's one way of testing whether we are really being led 'by the Spirit' or just giving into a natural desire. I can well imagine someone thinking that "God has called me to do missionary work on a tropical island, to give up my life in the rat-race and to witness to people in the sun and surf" and being really convinced that they are "led" by God to do that because the 'call' keeps coming back again and again. However, if we're in a difficult situation, having to tough it out and facing despair, opposition and ridicule, then we may possibly be more inclined to want to ask God to lead us out of that situation when He may, in fact, have been the One Who led us into it.

"Surrendering" to God means doing the tough stuff He calls us to do. It means listening to Him and obeying even when what He calls us to do seems irrational or unpleasant.

I have found, through personal experience, that when I 'surrender' and follow where He leads me - even though it goes against my natural inclination - that ultimately the place to which He leads me is much better than I ever imagined, although the journey there may have some rocky moments. But if I hadn't stepped out in faith and obeyed I would never have known that.

Too many Christians mouth the words "Jesus is Lord" without stopping to think that Lordship means He has total control of our lives - Lordship is not a partnership. He rules - we surrender. But it's in surrendering that we find true freedom.

Intimacy with God (8) - God speaks to our heart

We learn from the Bible that God can communicate with us directly by putting things in our hearts.

Here are some examples:

• The whole world sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart. (1 Kings 10:24)

• In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah, the LORD moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and to put it in writing. 2 Chron 36:22 (also Ezra 1:1).

• I set out during the night with a few men. I had not told anyone what my God had put in my heart to do for Jerusalem. (Nehemiah 2:2)

• I thank God, who put into the heart of Titus the same concern I have for you. (2 Cor 8:16)

We don't know exactly how God worked in putting something in the hearts of these men. Luke gives us a clue:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1-4 my emphasis).

Notice what Luke didn't write: “The Lord led me; the Lord spoke to me; I felt impressed by the Spirit to write.” Luke simply had a good idea, and that good idea caused him to write inspired Scripture. When God wanted Luke to write an account of Jesus' life which would become part of the canon of Scripture - what we call "the Bible" - He put it in Luke's heart simply as a good idea.

Some people will argue that this may have been the experience of people "in Bible times" but God doesn't do that sort of thing today (and they say this without any Scriptural evidence that God has stopped communicating with His people in this way). What does the Bible say?

"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. (Jeremiah 31:33 my emphasis).

The writer of Hebrews quotes these words twice and says first that this prophecy is fulfilled in the "new covenant" which was instituted by Jesus (Heb 8) and then quotes the same prophecy again in 10:14-16 when he says we are "being made holy" through the priestly minstry of Jesus.

So when God says He will put His words into our hearts and minds, He is speaking about something which is accomplished through the work of Jesus and which will become the experience of those who are "being made holy".

Through Ezekiel God says: "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh." (Ezekiel 36:26). He is telling us here that this transformation of the heart is the work of His Spirit.

Paul takes this up when writing to the Corinthians and says: "Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come." (2 Cor 1:21-22)

We should expect as a result of the work of Jesus that God will put things in the heart of His people even more so than "in Bible times".

Intimacy with God (7)

In her book Invitation to Solitude and Silence: Experiencing God's Transforming Presence (InterVarsity Press, 2004), Ruth Haley Barton writes:

What I'm learning these days is that a lot of our God-talk is like the finger that points to the moon. The finger that points to the moon is not the moon; pointing to the moon, talking about the moon, involving ourselves in study and explanation about how the light of the moon is generated is not the same thing as sitting in the moonlight, letting the moonbeams fall around us illuminating what they will. It is not the same thing as noticing how everything is transformed in this numinous light. When we sit in the moonlight, we don't try to figure it out, explain it, or force it to be anything different than what it is. We just enjoy it.

It is the same with God. Our words and mental constructs about God are not the Reality itself. They only point to it. In silence we give in to the fact that our words can never contain God or adequately describe our experiences with God. We give our minds permission to just stop and rest themselves in the experience of the Reality itself. The willingness to be silent in God's presence results in quietness, confidence, and clarity beyond what the human mind can generate. This is a very deep kind of rest indeed.

Mother Theresa of Calcutta once wrote:

Prayer is simply talking to God.
He speaks to us: we listen.
We speak to him: he listens.
A two-way process: speaking and listening.
The more you pray, the easier it becomes.
The easier it becomes, the more you'll pray.
Pray at home every day even if it is only for five minutes.

At a 1999 Prayer Breakfast, President Clinton reported that someone once asked Mother Teresa, "When you pray to God, what do you say?" She replied, "I don't say anything. I listen." The interviewer persisted, "Well, what does God say to you." She answered: "He doesn't say anything. He listens."

To hear the voice of God we need to set aside time to be quiet, to simply be still. In this busy world I wonder how many of us do this. Maybe we're just "too busy" to allow ourselves the luxury of an hour alone with God.

Characteristics of a genuine church

Commenting on 1 Thess 5:16-20 ("Be joyful always; pray continually; give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus."), William Barclay wrote:

"Verses 16-18 give us three marks of a genuine Church.

(i) It is a happy Church. There is in it that atmosphere of joy which makes its members feel that they are bathed in sunshine. True Christianity is an exhilarating and not a depressing thing.

(ii) It is a praying Church. Maybe our Church's prayers would be more effective if we remembered that 'they pray best together who also pray alone'.

(iii) It is a thankful Church. There is always something for which to give thanks; even on the darkest day there are blessings to count. We must remember that if we face the sun the shadows will fall behind us but if we turn our backs on the sun all the shadows will be in front."

These are good points, but I personally believe that there are also other additional marks of a genuine church (e.g. the two subsequent verses reveal two more). The Christadelphian community has always emphasised the importance of sound doctrine, but what other characteristics distinguish a "genuine church" from the others?

Worship is central in a genuine church.

I believe another characteristic of "a genuine church" is that Worship is a central part of the life of the church and its members. Worship is not optional. It is not an "add-on". Worship, if it is true worship at all, should reflect a major commitment on the part of the worshipper(s) to give glory and honour to God.

Whether we sings hymns or use contemporary music styles, there should be a commitment to excellence. Musicians should select music appropriate to the occasion and take time to rehearse it. Teachers need to spend time in meditation and preparation. It saddens me when I see musicians choosing hymns or music only minutes before a meeting which will incorporate worship, or hearing teachers say they have not prepared their message for a meeting on the following day. This shows a lack of respect for the One Whom we worship, and for our fellow-worshippers.

A genuine church will grow.

A living church is a growing church. Any living organism will grow. When it stops growing it begins to die.

The same is true, I believe, of the church.

• "And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved." (Acts 2:47)

• " ... more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number" (Acts 5:14).

Is there any good reason top believe that a dying church is a healthy church?

A genuine church grows because it takes "the Great Commission" seriously.

There are a couple of versions of this Commission by Jesus to His church:

Matthew 28:19-20 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Mark 16:15 "He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation."

Similarly, Jesus also said:

John 15:16 "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit - fruit that will last."

Luke 14:21 "Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame."

A genuine church is Christ-centred.

I have been criticised by some Christadelphians in the past for saying that the church should be Christ-centred, and have been told that the church should, in fact, be "God-centred".

However, Scripture says that:

• Jesus Christ is the head of the church (Eph 4:15; 5:23; Col 1:18). In fact, He is "the head over every power and authority" (Col 2:10) and "all power in heaven and earth" has been given to Him (Matt 28:18).

• Jesus has been exalted to the highest place and has been given a name above every name (Phil 2:9-11).

• "In Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" (Col 1:19; 2:9).

Because Jesus is "the image of the invisible God", "the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His being" (Col 1:15; Heb 1:3; cp. John 1:18; 14:9; 2 Cor 4:4) a church which is Christ-centred is therefore God-centred. We cannot be God-centred unless we are Christ-centred. Jesus said "He who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father, who sent him" (John 5:23).

John made a powerful allusion to the tabernacle in the wilderness which was positioned in the centre of the camp of Israel, when he said of the Word-made-flesh that He "made his dwelling among us" (John 1:14), which literally means He "tabernacled" among us, or "pitched His tent with us". As the tabernacle was at the centre of the camp of Israel, so Jesus Christ is the centre of the church, the place where God dwells among His people.

What does this mean in practice? A Christ-centred church will honour Him with its praises, giving Him glory (e.g. Rev 1:6; 5:12; Heb 13:21; 1 Peter 4:11; 2 Peter 3:18). A church which honours the Father alone with its praises does not practice the Truth in relation to the supremacy of the Son.

I personally feel that it was a backward step when the revisers of the Christadelphian hymn book changed a much-loved hymn, "Allelulia, sing to Jesus" to "Hallelujah, sing of Jesus." The change suggested that we should not address our praises to Him who is the Head of the Body, to Whom all authority in heaven and earth has been given, and Whose name is above every name. If so, then the revision is a sad denial of a foundational Truth, and an indication that the doctrine of God-manifestation is either ignored or not understood by those in the Christadelphian community who should know better.

Let's give Jesus His rightful place as the object of our praises.