Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
What is a true local church? If you asked this question of most evangelical Christians, I believe the vast majority would answer "you mean a Christian church at a certain location?" They might very well ask "what church?"
If the scripture writing apostles, lets say John, Peter and Paul, were suddenly to appear today, how might they answer this question, "what is a true local church?" Now while I wouldn't pretend to know for sure exactly what they would say, I think we might have some clues in the epistles these men wrote to the original local churches.
|
I've made this point before - when Jesus introduced the term 'ekklesia' in the gospel, he did it with the possessive pronoun 'my'. There were ekklesia which were of, by and for Jesus, and were 'his', and there were many ekklesia which were not. Any gathering of people was an ekklesia (cf Acts 19:41, Gk). The ekklesia of Jesus came to be known as "the church". But even there we can see "the church of (belonging to, cooperating with, motivated by) Jesus".
UntoHim, I'd like to take a step back from your apostles John, Peter and Paul. I'd like to go back to Jesus. Where was the "true church" of Jesus, in the gospels? Where was the gathering of, by, and for Jesus? Easy - wherever Jesus was, there was the true church. Notice that it was infiltrated from the start - "Have I not chosen you? Yet one of you has the devil". And Peter alternated between channeling the spirit of the Father, and the opposing one - e.g., "Get behind me, Satan".
Yet it was the "true" ekklesia of Jesus.
Okay, now forward to the apostles. Peter and John are in the temple, and they look down at an expectant beggar. When Peter began to speak, "Silver and gold I have none. . ." (Acts 3:6) was this the true ekklesia? My answer remains, wherever the Lord is, is the true ekklesia. And clearly Jesus was there, judging by what happened subsequently. Now some may say that two or three Jesus-followers may "tell it to the church" (Matt 18:17) and therefore are not the church. But I say, if you have the name of the Lord and presence of the Lord, if you have power to heal, to loose and to bind on earth as in heaven, then creating a secondary structure above that is superfluous. Obviously two believers in Detroit do not encompass nor represent all believers in Detroit! But they clearly represent the Lord - he showed this.
So struggling over abstractions is a false trail. As
UntoHim wrote, people are either qualified or unqualified by their words and deeds. Abstractions, however carefully parsed, do not make reality. The fact is that we're too clever by half. We create abstractions and become their slaves. "The pit we dig, we fall into", to paraphrase the psalmist.
We may become enamored of an abstraction, say "oneness". (it could be love, or peace, or truth, or justice, or joy, whatever) Then we see it as our lodestone, our point of clarity, of orientation. We see the morass around us, and propose a solution - the "church of oneness" or "local church on the ground of oneness" or whatever. That becomes our stand-in "true church". We've create an abstract ideal, and try to concretise, or implement, this concept.
But look at what happens. The abstraction becomes ensnared in our own fallen flesh. "Oneness", on the ground, became in our case slavish obedience to one man, and his quite obviously fallen children. Next thing, we were "covering drunken Noah" . . . how is this the true church?
Back to my original point. The true church is where Jesus is. If we focus on him we don't go wrong. We have 4 gospels, multiple intersecting witnesses. Nothing Paul wrote deviates from the Jesus of the gospels. The original disciples received Paul, and his ministry. But we should beware lest we take any abstraction introduced by Paul (or in the gospels for that matter) as our jumping-off point for today. That's unbalanced, and mis-aiming.
Jesus is the Truth. Jesus is the Way. Jesus is Wisdom. He is concrete and real. He's not a disembodied abstraction. He's a real person.
One final point - when Jesus met the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, were they the church? According to a 'technical reading' of Matt 18:17, no. They had to go back to Jerusalem and "tell it to the church [in Jerusalem]". Right? This is the typical reading, which LSM leverages to somehow 'control' or 'copyright' the the Lord's presence.
But I say this: the Lord can appear where he wants, when he wants. He can appear both in Jerusalem, and on the road to Emmaus!
#1 you have "seven spirits roaming through the earth" - the spirits go where they will, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where they come from and where they go. And believe me, they do God's will! "My word[spirit] doesn't return to Me void[or,empty]" (Isa 55:11) To presume that God is appearing to me, here, and therefore cannot appear to anyone else is ludicrous! What a god you have! The god of your fallen imagination, controlled by your fallen flesh! Don't imagine that your experience of his appearing, his healing, his comfort, his peace, his joy, however impressive, is the only "true" appearing and another's is "void". Just be thankful that the Lord visits you!
#2 When Jesus spoke, "let it be so", at that moment the Centurion's slave was healed. (Matt 8:13) Jesus was on the road, and the spirit of Jesus was in the house, healing someone. The disciples were in the "true ekklesia" with Jesus, and simultaneously someone was getting healed by this same True Jesus! So drop your concepts. Don't try to hold Jesus hostage in your abstract ideal, "oneness" or anything else. Just seek him with all your might, your strength, your heart. And love your neighbour. Don't worry about which abstraction is more-or-less true, and thereby presuming to judge which ekklesia is getting what, "of Jesus" or otherwise. That's a pit to fall into - avoid it. He's Judge of all.
Peace.