The Church

I have been challenged over the years to understand what is meant when we refer to 'church', and also how it is understood by others. This is in part provoked by a sense that there is a kind of ambiguity that arises in the discussion, and I'm never quite sure whether the ambiguity is accidental or convenient*.

* the same ambiguity applies to use of the word 'ministry' - but that is another discussion.

Frequently the discussion goes as follows:

"What is the church?"

"Answer: Many people today understand the church as a building. This is not a biblical understanding of the church. The word “church” comes from the Greek word ekklesia which is defined as “an assembly” or “called-out ones.” The root meaning of “church” is not that of a building, but of people. It is ironic that when you ask people what church they attend, they usually identify a building. Romans 16:5 says “… greet the church that is in their house.” Paul refers to the church in their house—not a church building, but a body of believers."

So ... that appears to be relatively straight forward. 

Except of course, that it isn't.

Late Greek ekklēsia = 'assembly', from ekklētos = 'called', from ekkalein = 'to call out', from kalein = 'to call'. The expression was used to describe the assembly of citizens of an ancient Greek state.

Because, whilst the Greek word ekklesia is translated 'church' in our English bibles, that is actually not the Greek that 'the word church comes from', nor even the concept that the word 'church' comes from.

Stay with me here because (hopefully) this is where it gets interesting.

Whilst Google Dictionary may not be your preferred source of anything authoritative, it's entry on the meaning of 'church' is fascinating:

church 

noun: church; plural noun: churches

• a building used for public Christian worship
• a particular Christian Organisation withits own clergy, buildings, and distinctive doctrines
• the hierarchy of clergy within a particular Christian Church
• institutionalised religion as a political or social force

Origin  (the interesting bit ...)

Old English cir(i)ce, cyr(i)ce, related to Dutch kerk and German Kirche, based on medieval Greek kurikon, from Greek kuriakon ‘Lord's' (a thing belonging to the Lord), from kurios ‘master or lord’.

Alan Knox (PhD Biblical Theology) observes that "This word is used (only) twice in the New Testament:

• When you come together, it is not the Lord’s [κυριακόν – kuriakon] supper that you eat. (1 Corinthians 11:20 ESV)
• I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s [κυριακῆ – kuriake] day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet… (Revelation 1:10 ESV)"

He adds:

In both of these verses, the adjective κυριακός (kuriakos) is used to specify the owner of the “supper” or “day”, that is, the supper and day belonged to the Lord. This word belongs to a completely different semantic domain (range of meanings) than the Greek word ἐκκλησία (ekklesia).

Eventually, (i.e. post New Testament) the place where believers met together came to be called “the Lord’s house” using the term κυριακόν (kuriakon), which is the neuter version (literally, “the Lord’s thing”). This word made its way into both German (“Kirche”), Anglo Saxon (“circe”), and Middle English (“chirche”). 

It is interesting that when Luther translated the New Testament into vernacular German, he did not use the word “Kirche” to translate ἐκκλησία (ekklesia), he used the German word “Gemeinde”, which means something similar to the English word “community”. However, many Germans still refer to the “church” as the “Kirche”.

When Tyndale translated the New Testament into English in 1536, he also did not use the word “church” to translate the Greek word ἐκκλησία (ekklesia). Instead, he used the word “congregation”. 

So the reason that we associate the word 'church' with a building, or with a hierarchical institution, is because that is actually what the word means, and - I would suggest - it's (erroneous?) insertion into the New Testament was for that exact reason.

When Paul, in Romans 16:5, says “… greet the (ἐκκλησία ) that is in their house”, that is exactly what he means but he is not making any reference to 'church', but rather to the community that has been brought together, those who have been 'called out'.

the confession of faith

So, when Jesus (Matthew 16) asked His disciples: "Who do you say I am?", Peter responded with his 'confession of faith' that Jesus was 'the Christ, the Son of the Living God'. Jesus' response was that this was not something revealed to Peter by human intellect, but by divine revelation and that it was upon this confession that he would build His 'ekklesia'.

Many will be familiar with the fact that the Roman Catholic Church ascribes its authority to the fact that it was 'founded' by the Apostle Peter, and that Jesus had clearly stated, in that passage, that the true church would be built upon the authority vested in Peter, i.e. that he was the rock on whom the church would be built.

Interestingly, Tyndale was arrested as a heretic for undermining the authority of the Roman Church, convicted, strangled to death, and then burned at the stake.

(Let that be a lesson to anyone who questions the 'official' interpretation to beware of trying to match a desire for the truth against vested self-interest. I recall someone saying something about 'serving two masters')

 

who cares? 

Why is this even an issue? 

I suspect that the Lord probably cares if His words are being distorted to serve a different purpose. And whilst it shouldn't surprise us if that is the case, surely we have an obligation to understand 'the truth that sets us free'.

It seems that there is a (possibly deliberate - but, if not, certainly convenient) confusion between whether Jesus was talking of those who were 'called out' (of the world, and into relationship with Him) to assemble as equals before Him (the democratic assembly of citizens), or to a hierarchical religious institution that would interpret the will of God to its adherents.

While that ambiguity persists there is uncertainty about the nature and role of leadership, and even the nature of relationships between Christians - are some subordinate to others? 

For people in positions of 'authority' in 'the church', the ambiguity is an effective means of proliferating that model whilst maintaining plausible deniability.

Without a sound biblical understanding of how Jesus sees His 'congregation', we can have little understanding of how to manage those who would seek to assert themselves over others, in the guise of 'authority'. It was the leaders of 'God's People' who sought the death of Christ, who sought to undermine and revile His reputation because they felt threatened by His message.

There will always be those that seek to exalt themselves and have authority over others. There will always be those who seek the most important seats at banquets, who seek the recognition of titles and special favour .

We make a grave error if we think that kind of behaviour is limited to first century Judaism. Jesus was very clear in His commands given in Matthew 23 that we were not to give or receive titles, because we are all brothers - assembled as equals before Him. And whilst some may be entrusted with 'oversight', that is not in the context of any subordination of others.

Jesus was very clear that we were not to succumb to that kind of self-serving. The example of Christ is to serve: both to serve God and to serve others.
.

the greatest among you will be the servant of all

Reflections on Life

Some days things seem really clear, other days they are a blur, and sometimes the obvious things are not obvious at all. Context and perspective are key. But they are not always the full image.

Sometimes our focus changes and we find that our reflections are not enough for us to see clearly. In fact the view can be obstructed, sometimes by a screen of our own making. We get a sense of what is out there, but we are distracted by other things, more immediate things, things that are closer to home.

If we are honest we will acknowledge the screens that we put in the way. But those screens have a very practical purpose, they protect us from things on the outside that we don't want to let in. Sure they might obstruct the view - a little - but they are important.

But if we are really honest we will concede that there may be some pretty serious cracks in this whole picture that we have so carefully created for ourselves. Sometimes the cracks are invisible, when you look at them from the right angle - barely noticeable. But other times they are fully revealed by the light, and we can feel vulnerable and exposed. The cracks can be caused by a sudden event, or just induced by the stresses of circumstance. 

We resist and resist, but eventually it becomes too much... and we crack.

In the midst of all this it is important to understand that it is our resistance that often causes our catastrophic failure. If we were more flexible, more malleable, less concerned about maintaining appearances and appearing strong, perhaps then we could adapt to the stresses of our circumstances rather than fracture before them.

But there is something beautiful in accepting our brokenness, and the brokenness of those around us. When we acknowledge our vulnerability, and the fact that we are not perfect, we become more real, not less. 

Marred - certainly - but the scars are a reflection of having fully lived. What they mean now is that we need to be gentle, with ourselves and with others. No longer living recklessly, but with kindness and thoughtfulness. 

With self-control.

The Dance

There is something about the dance that is strangely attractive, yet can be profoundly disconcerting for those not directly involved. When I speak of dance here I don't meant the crass bop, bump and grind that so often passes for dance, but rather the close interpersonal connection of two people moving together and responding as one, in the moment, unconscious of those around - totally given to each other. When we watch dancing performed by those who have developed a degree of proficiency, we see a mutual closeness and responsiveness that deep down we yearn for. Dance requires leadership, followership and mutual submission. It involves a desire to delight and to be delighted, to show strength and delicacy. When the two are completely immersed in each other, the music, and the moment, there is a sense of unity that is quite compelling.

This is the kind of unity that God calls us into through His Son. An intimate closeness that is immediately responsive, and profoundly delightful to Him who created us for exactly that purpose. The biblical references to 'the Bride' are no accident. They speak powerfully of the kind of intimacy that God desires with those who will give themselves to Him fully, in delighted submission and trust. But the Bride of scripture is not an individual, but a people.

Some time ago we had some lessons in Argentine Tango and the thought that struck me most often was the fact that the entire point of this form of dance is to make the female partner look absolutely amazing. The role of the male is to lead and provide the strength necessary to create a space for his partner to flourish and delight, to provide the context for her to reveal the inner beauty of one who is completely given to the dance.

Watching the instructor it became clear that his total attention was fixed on his partner, seeking to show her too the way of the dance. Nothing else mattered. The partner, in turn, was expected to be completely responsive to his lead and yet to increasingly express creativity and freedom as she became more accustomed to the music and movement. As the two become more and more united, the dance evolves into a continuous flow of mutual self-expression, and it is beautiful to watch.

Compare this with much of what constitutes 'competitive dance' where couples vie with each other to determine who can create the most impressive performance. The contrast is stark.

Two people move with engineering precision through a progression of choreographed steps, each trying to catch the attention of others who are merely spectators of the dance. The focus is outwards and attention-seeking, to score points and to not make mistakes. To appear perfect in the performance of the dance. And the outcome is barren and contrived. When they look at each other they often seem to barely notice, and much of the time they are desperately scanning the audience to see who is noticing the culmination of their practice.

The book 'The Shaping of Things to Come' discusses the movie Chocolat and contrasts the 'piety' of the church with the 'goodness' of the main character Vianne. That piety is typified as a form of external 'goodness' that lacks substance or authenticity, the appearance of being good. How similar to the contrived attitude of 'competitive dance' with the focus on who can be 'better', on competition and self aggrandisement rather than on submission and humility.

God has called us to more than mere outward appearance. He calls us to serve one another and to love sincerely, from the heart. To bear one another's burdens, to give of ourselves. To be lost in the dance, both with Him and with those that He draws near to us. To create that space to express who we are and our desire to give of ourselves to one another.

The greatest challenge I face in all of this is my reaction to superficial and self-serving behaviour that causes me to withdraw rather than engage, particularly when it is evidenced in those who purport to 'serve' the people of God. The history of Christendom reveals a throng of people who have sought, through ecclesiastical office and position, to elevate themselves above their brothers. Rather than drawing us into the dance, they are more intent on being the centre of attention, crowding out everyone else, scoring points, not making obvious 'mistakes'.

Pray for me that I might have the grace to see that even these are subject to the will and the purposes of God and that each of us is on a journey of reconciliation and discovery as we seek to know Him and the Life that He offers us. May we all learn of Him who is our example, who did not see equality with God as something to be grasped but who humbled Himself as a servant, even to the point of death. And in His humility (and humiliation) He was swept up again into that divine dance of God. From Death to Life.

His prayer for us is that we might be one even as they are One.

The Dance of Life

Great time last night at the Equine Insight annual Bush Dance, raising funds for 'Youth at Risk' programs to provide subsidised counselling services to local kids.

There were a number of things that happened that really underscore some of the stuff we have been talking about. Firstly, the incredible dynamic of a number of people of faith getting together to celebrate life, and giving, and community. 
(Do you think there might be a bit of dancing in heaven? I suspect there might be.) 
Not that this was a 'Christian' event, but more that so many of the people that went were 'family' in that sense. I wonder how much we underestimate the power of incarnational witness - just being a follower of Christ and living as ourselves reveals the grace and connection of the 'life of God'. One of our close friends (a 'not-yet Christian') mentioned at the end of the evening that there was such a joy, a happiness about the whole event. For them it was a remarkable evening, full of light, laughter and inclusiveness.

A couple of guys arrived that had clearly been drinking a bit on the way. They were met and greeted and included. It was really interesting to talk with them and find out where they were at, and what brought them to the evening. Later it struck us how easy it would be to simply react to them sucking on a couple of tinnies and turn them away. 
By the end of the evening they were really enthusiastic about the dancing - despite not being 'very good at it'. It struck me that this is exactly the people that Jesus was condemned for associating with:

For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.”  (Matthew 11:18-19)

These guys, not knowing 'the protocol', had made a mistake of having a couple of beers on the way to our 'family friendly' Bush Dance. What an amazing metaphor for the message of the Gospel of God ... They had not met the performance requirements, but were accepted and welcomed anyway, and their attitude totally reflected that acceptance. 
They were valued for who they were, not judged for 'what they had done', making them free to respond naturally and generously.

Another visitor was an Iranian guy, 28 years old, and who had apparently suffered horribly there before escaping to find refuge in Australia. He is a delightful young man ... and it was his birthday ... and he was so included by everyone. It was like he suddenly had a whole bunch of people he had never met before celebrating his birthday with him. Highly educated and lawyer qualified back in Iran he privately conceded to struggling with English and the culture of this strange but wonderful land he now finds himself in. But he seemed so happy to simply be there. 
There is such power in unconditional acceptance and inclusiveness.

'The Shaping of Things to Come' is a fascinating read. 
It discusses a more real and inclusive way of being the people of God. It speaks of being in the world, but not of the world, and of reaching out to serve others in ways that meet their needs, not our own. No agendas, no mixed motives. Just caring for others like the Son demonstrated in His care for us. While we were His enemies - and didn't even know that we were - He laid down His life for us. 

The Bush Dance attracts all kinds of people, all ages, and diverse backgrounds. Large families, lonely singles, youth, a whole birthday party of teenagers that decided that a Bush Dance would make for a cool party, locals, city folk, friends, couples with very young kids ... the common thing is that they all want to celebrate together, with both friends and complete strangers, this gift of life and community.

Some people brought guests from interstate, others from the Netherlands - they had a ball. The musicians - Peter and Julian - donated their time and skill for the evening, bringing an extra dimension with live music, some their own compositions. Many local businesses donated prizes for the raffle, meaning that many people left with more than they came with.

Bush Dances are messy. Not everyone can dance. Not everyone can keep time to the music. They are crowded - you keep bumping into people. And they are tiring, involving lots of energy and constant movement. They can be confusing too because some of the steps and movements are quite involved. Just who am I supposed to be dancing with?

But the delicious thing about a Bush Dance is that none of that really matters. It's not what you are doing, or even how you are doing it, that matters. It is the fact that you are there. To smile and to laugh and to just be involved, included and accepted as part of a celebration that is so much more than anything you could create for yourself. A celebration of life.

Perhaps that's part of what it means to be a follower of Christ. The important this is that you are there ... to celebrate this life that has been given to us, to be involved and accepted.
... and speaking of delicious, Frost and Hirsch's book also makes some fascinating observations about the movie 'Chocolat'. Provocative movie, particularly in the way it makes a stark distinction between being 'good' and being 'pious'.

If you haven't seen it, you really should. 







But that is for next time.

From Death to Life

Lazarus was sick, very sick. He knew that, the people close to him certainly knew that. In fact his condition was terminal. 

But his death would result in new life, and the revelation of the glory of God.

John 11:41-44 - So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me.”

When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!”  
The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face. Jesus said to them, “Take off the grave clothes and let him go.”

I so love this tiny glimpse into the relationship between Jesus and the Father. It speaks of intimacy and understanding, of total trust, total reliance, and total unfathomable abundance.

"Father, I thank you that you have heard me."

Of course He had heard Him. The two are one, united in love and purpose.

John 5:16-21 - So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it."

"Father ..."

How does one even begin to convey the identification, the closeness of that one word? The sense of the passage is not that the the Son is 'unable' to do anything by himself, but rather that He wills not to. Oneness is the fundamental essence of who He is, despite the obvious distinction of the persons ... it is the essence of the Life of God and allows the Son to be totally caught up in the purposes of the Father without any sense of losing His identity. In fact this 'death to independent self' is actually the fulfillment of His identity. He cannot see Himself as other than One with the Father.


This is such a pivotal concept to the Gospel of God and it grieves me that it is so often swamped by the 'Jesus Only' obsession of much that passes for modern Christianity. 

The whole point of the incarnation was the revealing of the Father and of His love for those who are His.

After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:
“Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began".    (John 17:1-5)

His first thought was that we might know the Father ... that the Son was given authority to give eternal life, and that life is encapsulated in the knowledge of the Father and the Son. This is the life that He calls us into, a life of intimate connection with the Father and the Son through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit ...

For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.        (Romans 8:14-16)

Discipleship

Strange the words we use. Stranger still the images and concepts they induce in the minds of the hearer.  One challenge of using a word like 'discipleship' is that it is a strange word, seldom used outside the confines of religious circles, and therefore loaded with a whole swag of meaning that may or may not be relevant to the idea we want to communicate.  There seems to be a strong push in church circles for a move toward more intentional 'discipleship' of those who would associate with being 'Christian' ... we are hearing it more and more often. But it begs the question regarding what we actually mean by the term and what the outcome is intended to be.

Bible.org advises that 'the Greek term μαθητής (mathētēs) refers generally to any “student,” “pupil,” “apprentice,” or “adherent,” as opposed to a “teacher.” In the ancient world, however, it is most often associated, with people who were devoted followers of a great religious leader or teacher of philosophy. The type of adherence was determined by the master, ranging from being the follower of a great thinker and master of the past like Socrates, to being the pupil of a philosopher like Pythagoras, to being the devotee of a religious master like Epicurus.'

If the type or nature of 'adherence' is 'determined by the master', perhaps it might be useful to see what the Master actually said about the issue. What did Jesus say about following Him?

There are some obvious quotes that spring to mind:

Matthew 16:23-25 - Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”
Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it."

John 8:28-32 - “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. The one who sent me is with me; He has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases Him.” 
Even as he spoke, many believed in Him.
To the Jews who had believed Him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

John 13:35 - "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

Now, here's a thought ...

By coining a term like 'discipleship', do we actually point people in the direction of losing their life for Him, of doing nothing on their own but only speaking what the Father has taught them and doing what pleases Him, of loving one another as He has loved us ... 
... or do we just direct them to another theoretical construct?

(... how do you point someone in the direction of losing their life anyway ...?)

In John 3:8 Jesus makes an extraordinary statement that completely phased Nicodemus when He said: "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
... and later He says:
"But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."  (John 14:26)

In the writings of the prophet Jeremiah (31:31-34) we read of an extraordinary promise of God: “This is the covenant I will make with the people 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. No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,”  declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”


So the first step toward being a disciple appears to be about losing my life for His sake ... and I'm not sure that I can progress much further unless I am prepared to take that step.

Will I die for Him?
Will I allow His Spirit to take control of my life, to take me where He pleases?

But first I need to be able to hear Him, before I can obey Him.