|
THE CHURCH REVISITED
I spent time in the November, 2010 issue raising issues regarding the outlook of the kingdom of God and the church of Jesus Christ. But what Jesus announced about the genesis of the church and what Paul defined as the operation of the church seem incompatible in modern society today. Jesus as recorded in Matt 16:18 stated that the church would be built upon a "rock." Now we have debated for centuries as to whether that meant a "rock" of truth or a "rock" as a nick name. Depending on whose hermeneutics you trust to translate the text will determine your conclusion of the issue. I want to move pass this debate to some of the more problematic issues.
Paul used several metaphors to relate his interpretation of the "church." In Eph 2:19, he refers to the church as a "household" and in v21, as a "building" and a "temple." Also in I Cor. 12:13-27, Paul sets out to make an analogy of the human body as a metaphor for the church. The people who received the message of Jesus Christ were then called the "church." They met in cell pockets in different locations and discipled new converts into the Faith. The importance of where they worshiped and what they called "Houses of Worship" was a later development and could be concluded as adding more complications.
As the church attempted to fortify itself with the doctrine of the Apostles (Acts 2:42); the practice of its worship (Col. 3:16-17); and the fellowship of its followers (Rom 15:5-6); one thing became clear. Satan was not going to make this an easy assignment. The external persecutions (Acts 8:1; 4) and the internal divisions (1 Cor 1:10) produced a strain on the long term reality of its existence and the effectiveness of its message.
We can safely conclude that most of the early recipients were Jewish, however, it was never meant to be restricted to only Jewish thought or culture. In fact, I believe one of the early mistakes of the church was trying to find a way to blend Christianity and Judaism together or replacing one for the other.
In reality, Jesus offered fulfillment in one and a future in the other (John 1:17). This issue of who can be included in the church divided the church up into several fractions in the first 50 years of its existence. John records Jesus words in John 1:11-13, as a qualifier for the true sons of God that would inhabit the reality of the church.
These complex groups of gifted individuals called "the church" were uniquely designed to blend into the fabric of society and change it from the inside out. Or that is what is commonly thought. But was the church's purpose to blend or start a new society? If not blend, how was this new society to get started and what would it replace?
Paul reveals that the mystery of the church was a hidden reality (Eph 3:7-11); the book of Acts records that the growth of the church is by supernatural intervention (Acts 2:47); and the power of the church is in the distribution of spiritual gifts to every believer for a witness (1 Cor 12:7; 11). The church is to be a people of Faith in which the Holy Spirit takes up residence.
The church is really defined by its doctrine, its people, and its style of worship. All of these areas are under attack as we pursue an understanding of the true nature of the church. However, in its quest for truth the church sought first to redefine its leader, Jesus Christ.
Centuries of debate questioned the percentage of humanity and divinity Jesus possessed while on earth. The age of miracles was replaced by the age of reason and language supplied little clarity on supernatural issues. To properly define the church is to define its mission and clarify its relationship to its founder, Jesus Christ.
If we conclude the church is to be both visible and invisible then we can surmise that entrance into this glorious realm is one of a mystery. We argue over whether salvation is through sacraments, spiritual gifts, or Christian perfectionism. We question the validity of leadership today and question whether we need to attend church or serve the church in our heart.
If we lived in the first three centuries of the church, we would define church as how well you can withstand persecution and death. If we lived in the middle Ages, it was how loyal you were to an institution; and if we look at church today, it is how effective you market your products and maintain your wealth.
I conclude that we need a church that is rich in love and united in Faith to prepare for the soon return of Jesus Christ. The church is where we receive the maintenance plan for life and the kingdom is our reward for being faithful. Don't forsake fellowship (Heb 10:25) and never neglect your individual accountability (Phil 2:12) to trust God.
Next month: Who Speaks for The Church?
Dennis M. Golphin
doctordmg@gmail.com
| 
