[OBW]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

I never thought that arguing that Christ and the church are the essential factors of the kingdom was "compartmentalizing." Please explain.

First, it is the assumption that “Christ and the church” are “the” essential factors of the Kingdom that is the problem. If you had just said “Christ” then there would have been no argument.

But while “Christ and the church” sounds so noble, it is the experience of what that means that makes it “compartmentalized.” It is almost entirely about the gathering of believers (and more importantly, the gathering of the believers that follow the way of the LC). It is not really about how life is lived outside the walls of the “tent of meeting” whatever form that takes. The whole “Christ and the church” theology is built upon a compartmentalizing of Paul’s writings in such a manner that righteousness becomes more about being spiritual together than righteous in all ways.

When I viewed the early believers, I saw people who had their lives changed. It was not that instead of being at the bar they were at church. It was that they were different in everything that they did. It was a change in their talk, in their actions toward others, in the cessation of excessive drink (if they had been marked by such), etc. It may not always be that they were suddenly more outwardly different as it was that their very attitude about everything was changed.

But once they retreat to their little group of believers, the Kingdom is no longer displayed to the world. That does not mean that it does not exist. But it is a different aspect of the Kingdom. Yet this is in essence the whole of the Kingdom in the LC’s mind. The Kingdom is about becoming more spiritual; more connected to God and each other. And that is happening in the meeting and not out in the world.

But it should be. Back to how I “see” the early church. They lived their lives much as they had, but with a difference. They no longer cheater their customers. They no longer treated the rich better than the poor. They no longer despised slaves and deferred to slave owners. They no longer refused to serve those of different cultures. They were very different. But they lived their lives in simplicity and humility. And they gathered to worship the One that had made it so and to learn more about Him and His ways. They did not treat their Christian community as the “Kingdom” and the rest of their lives as something to get through. (And I am not saying that the LC entirely does this. But while there are statements, such as in the messages Priestly Scribe has posted since, the practice was already different before those messages were given.)

You make the above-quoted statement immediately after I said “The Kingdom is the restoration. It is the whole enchilada. It is not "simply" Christ and the church. That compartmentalizes your Kingdom into "church" which is Kingdom, and everything else which is not. And the LC as a group is failing at the rest.” But your response, above, while not addressing what I actually said, does not disagree with it, but seems to ask why I should think that it should not be exactly as I said. And in that, you seem to establish my point of compartmentalization.

While I wanted to do the following in a different post, it does circle back to the compartmentalization a little, so here goes.

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

If Christ announced the coming of the kingdom of God as Matthew testified in His Gospel then surely He is the herald of the kingdom. If Christ is the herald of the kingdom then surely He must be the primary constituent of the kingdom. If the kingdom people (the believers in Christ) were brought into the kingdom through Christ then surely they are likewise constituents of the kingdom. Finally, if the kingdom people are a new creation, the one new man, the Body of Christ, etc., and "citizens of the heavenlies," then surely the church is the kingdom. As far as the church is concerned, it is the kingdom, because Christ announced it, Christ died to institute it, God set Him as ruler over it (as well as the rest of the kingdom of God - all created things), and the church is it's expression.

So the messenger is the primary constituent? I am not arguing that Christ is not the primary constituent of the Kingdom. I’m arguing that saying it is because He is the messenger that he is the primary constituent is ridiculous. Kings send messengers. Lawyers hire couriers. The messenger is generally not the constituent at all. In the case of the Kingdom, it was the declaration of the Kingdom that was significant. The only reason to make a statement like “If Christ is the herald of the kingdom then surely He must be the primary constituent” is to follow that with something that otherwise would not make sense. But saying “surely” does not give it any weight. It is not “surely so.” It happens to be so. But it absolutely is not because Christ was the herald. If we take that kind of thought, then what was John the Baptist? I guess he was the primary constituent of Christ since he was the herald of the coming of Christ.

Constituents of the Kingdom. Yes we are. Very much so. All of those who believe are, even the pathetic whore of Babylon ones that find themselves in the modern Thyatira.

But the Kingdom is not just the constituents any more than the economy of God is just dispensing. The Kingdom is the expression of God’s righteousness through its constituents during this life and on this planet. It is not just the constituents nor is it merely a foretaste of a future thing. While the church is part of the kingdom, it is not the kingdom.

I know that there is the thought (underpinned by verses that I cannot immediately quote or find) that indicates that we are to shine for the world to see. But that shining is not because we are figuratively a collective cathedral of people who gather together and worship God better than anyone else worships their god (even the true God). It is because those people are among all others and their lives shine with the gospel of Christ. And I’m not just talking about preaching the verbal gospel, although that is part of it. I’m talking about the testimony of the good news. The change in the life due to an encounter with Christ is good news. It is good news to their neighbors, their coworkers, those who they meet in stores and on streets. That is where the Kingdom shines. It does not shine to the world in a meeting. That is for God. And it is not unimportant. But it is not the whole of the Kingdom.

The assembly is not the Kingdom. We are the Kingdom. In everything we do. If you are willing to expand your definition of “church” to encompass every aspect of every life of every believer in every interaction with all the world, then the church is the Kingdom. But while in a universal sense this is true, experience shows that LC usage is not so broad. “Church” is about the “Local Churches” and is about how they meet, what they believe, and what they do not believe. It is more about the assembly and less about the life. You can’t dispute this because I was there for many years.