The Myth of One Church

 

The theme of this week’s reflection is perhaps, more theological than about mission.  However, it is a subject that I feel does need airing, so I hope that you will read on carefully.

 After I had spiritual awakening in 1963, I soon came under the influence of a certain kind of evangelicalism that I can only describe as narrow minded.  I do not mean that they were not sincere and dedicated Christians. Indeed, in many ways they were exemplary.  However, certain general beliefs and attitudes were presented for others to adopt without much thought.  One area in which this was true was ecumenism.  In the mission organisation I had become involved as a teenager we declared ourselves willing to work with anyone “who loved the Lord Jesus”.  However, we did not define what that meant, and it became a different way of expressing that they were evangelical.  Ecumenism, on the other hand, was seen as erroneous and unbiblical.  We tended to keep away.

Understanding and attitudes have tended to change with time, as indeed, what is often now meant by “Evangelical” and “Ecumenical”.  The former could mean very right-wing conservative and literalist, or it could mean Pentecostal and Charismatic, or a range of beliefs and practices in between.  In 1963, many in the church I attended and the mission organisation I had joined would have understood ecumenism as a steady march back to the Roman Catholic Church.  Today, it is more generally understood as a common pilgrimage and a road shared by different travellers who might enjoy and learn from conversing together.

Behind both misunderstood topics is the theology of “Church”.  Twice in Matthew’s Gospel the Greek word ekklesia appears in his text (Matthew 16:18 and 18:17).  At the time that Matthew wrote his gospel, the term was commonly used to describe the called-out assembly of citizens of a city-state, all of whom had rights to determine the affairs of their local community within a direct democratic system, as compared to an elected representative democracy such as we have in the UK.  It is generally understood that synagogues were similarly democratic.

Matthew has presented the words of Jesus as if they had been spoken in Greek.  We have no knowledge of what they were in Aramaic.  What might Jesus have meant when he used the terms Matthew has translated and we have in English as “my church” and “the church”? We need to remember that at that time it meant a called-out assembly of citizens.  Matthew includes fifty-five references to the kingdom of heaven (elsewhere called the kingdom of God).  So, in using ekklesia it would seem Jesus is referring to those who are citizens of that kingdom, called out from among the general population.

Also, at the time of Jesus on earth, people whose behaviour was inappropriate, and where the person refused to repent and respond to reasonable attempts to bring about a change of behaviour.behaviour would be brought before the synagogue congregation if a  In this sense in Matthew 18:15 Jesus is either using the term metaphorically or else referring to synagogue discipline.  Given his audience at the time, it would be logical that he meant the congregation of their local synagogue and not a Christian ecclesial system of governance.

Our contemporary understanding of “one church” does not have a clear and unambiguous basis in the New Testament.  As early Christians were scattered from Jerusalem, and later through the missionary work of those sent out from Antioch, both the record of Acts and the letters in the New Testament do not support the concept of a single organic entity.  As more and more gentiles were converted to become followers of Jesus, guidance was sought by the church at Antioch from the church at Jerusalem on the matter of keeping the law of Moses in order to be righteous before God.

The church at Jerusalem responds by stating first that those who had been leading the Christians at Antioch astray had not been sent to them from the church at Jerusalem, as it seems they had claimed. They then go on to provide some basic essentials for “doing well”.  This was clearly not a set of rules.  Later, Paul also writes on the subject.  So, the apostles and the whole church at Jerusalem are giving guidance on a controversial subject but are not exercising any authority over the church at Antioch.

 Antioch did not need permission from Jerusalem to send out Paul and Barnabas or Silas and Mark.  Their missionary endeavours led to the planting of churches rather than extending the church at Antioch.  The letters of Paul that we have in the New Testament were sent to and for Christians in specific locations.  They were not written to an imagined universal church.   So, their contents should be read as guidance tn those specific churches, from which we might also gain some understanding.  But we should not rewrite history or redetermine Paul’s intentions.

 Now, I will leave it to you to continue reflecting on first century Christianity, while I explain one reason the concept of “one church” causes me concern.  It leads to thinking that somehow the church has failed to live out the great commission.  It is not the fault of us as individuals or local churches.  Somehow there is a collective responsibility that lets us off the hook.  But the New Testament makes clear that it is each individual church and each individual Christian within them on whom the spotlight should fall.

 Responsibility and autonomy should be given to each individual and to each local church to do something to change the world.  We should stop thinking that someone should do something about it.  Imagine what the world would begin to look like if every Christian assumed responsibility for living the Jesus way and proclaiming the good news of salvation and the kingdom of God to the relatives, neighbours, and friends.  Imagine what our local communities would begin to look like if every church accepted responsibility for enabling and resourcing its members for the mission of God.  We need to think local when it comes to responsibility.