(Summary of Part 1: Scripture doesn’t teach a “universal church”).
But isn’t the church the “body of Christ,” and aren’t all Christians part of “the body of Christ”?
Yes, it is. And no, they’re not.
Paul uses the metaphor of the human body (eyes, ears, hands, feet) to describe the ekklesia, the summoned assembly: different members with different gifts working together as one functional unit. “[T]he body is not one member, but many…whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it” (I Cor. 12: 14, 26). The members of a local church are one body for Christ, one body in Christ, one body established by Christ. “Now ye [the church at Corinth] are the body of Christ, and members in particular” (I Cor. 12: 27). So the “body” metaphor refers to each individual assembly—not a composite of all those assemblies.
You are not in the same ekklesia as a Christian man in China. If he suffers, you cannot suffer with him. You don’t even know him. If he is unrepentant about a public sin, you cannot “tell it unto the church” (Matt. 18: 17). Who are you going to tell? The two of you are not members of the same functional body. Such an amorphous affiliation as a “universal church” can never be the organized, effective unit that Christ intended when he said “I will build my church [ekklesia]” (Matt. 16: 18).
But aren’t all Christians somehow “related”?
Of course. We are all part of the Kingdom. We have one King presiding over us from Heaven. We are each members of our own ekklesias, which are orderly assemblies meant to spread the Kingdom. We don’t all belong to the exact same ekklesia, anymore than all schoolchildren belong to the same school. But we are all in the same Kingdom and share the same purposes, which are to be achieved through our individual ekklesias, each working in its own sphere of influence and encouraging the others. One day, too, we will all be members of a larger assembly—a general assembly of all saints in Heaven. But all the saints won’t constitute a summoned assembly until then.
Why does it matter anyway? What’s wrong with teaching a “universal church”?
Well, if you are automatically a member of Christ’s “universal church” then joining a local ekklesia becomes an afterthought. This is why Satan triumphs when Christians buy into the idea of membership in the “universal church.” The allegedly-ideal “universal church” sure beats the local assembly with its personality quirks and flaws, doesn’t it? So many Christians become slack in seeking out an ekklesia where they can grow in the Word, edify each other, and spread the Kingdom.
The individual local assemblies, weakened by their own identity crises, give way to para-church organizations that appear to offer better “central unifying principles”: associations, conventions, seminaries, and national youth groups. Ekklesias have been redefined as mere buildings where these para-church groups hold sway, while self-professed members of the “universal church” float aimlessly in and out of them, receiving no discipleship or doctrinal training from the church leadership itself. For many modern Christians, the ekklesia has become the red-headed stepchild of God’s ultimate plan.
But the ekklesia--the functional local assembly--was the sole institution created by Christ to spread the Kingdom to all nations until “every tongue shall confess God” (Rom. 14: 11).
For more on this topic here are good articles by Thomas Williamson and Glenn Kerr, and a good book called Ecclesia by B. H. Carroll.
But isn’t the church the “body of Christ,” and aren’t all Christians part of “the body of Christ”?
Yes, it is. And no, they’re not.
Paul uses the metaphor of the human body (eyes, ears, hands, feet) to describe the ekklesia, the summoned assembly: different members with different gifts working together as one functional unit. “[T]he body is not one member, but many…whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it” (I Cor. 12: 14, 26). The members of a local church are one body for Christ, one body in Christ, one body established by Christ. “Now ye [the church at Corinth] are the body of Christ, and members in particular” (I Cor. 12: 27). So the “body” metaphor refers to each individual assembly—not a composite of all those assemblies.
You are not in the same ekklesia as a Christian man in China. If he suffers, you cannot suffer with him. You don’t even know him. If he is unrepentant about a public sin, you cannot “tell it unto the church” (Matt. 18: 17). Who are you going to tell? The two of you are not members of the same functional body. Such an amorphous affiliation as a “universal church” can never be the organized, effective unit that Christ intended when he said “I will build my church [ekklesia]” (Matt. 16: 18).
But aren’t all Christians somehow “related”?
Of course. We are all part of the Kingdom. We have one King presiding over us from Heaven. We are each members of our own ekklesias, which are orderly assemblies meant to spread the Kingdom. We don’t all belong to the exact same ekklesia, anymore than all schoolchildren belong to the same school. But we are all in the same Kingdom and share the same purposes, which are to be achieved through our individual ekklesias, each working in its own sphere of influence and encouraging the others. One day, too, we will all be members of a larger assembly—a general assembly of all saints in Heaven. But all the saints won’t constitute a summoned assembly until then.
Why does it matter anyway? What’s wrong with teaching a “universal church”?
Well, if you are automatically a member of Christ’s “universal church” then joining a local ekklesia becomes an afterthought. This is why Satan triumphs when Christians buy into the idea of membership in the “universal church.” The allegedly-ideal “universal church” sure beats the local assembly with its personality quirks and flaws, doesn’t it? So many Christians become slack in seeking out an ekklesia where they can grow in the Word, edify each other, and spread the Kingdom.
The individual local assemblies, weakened by their own identity crises, give way to para-church organizations that appear to offer better “central unifying principles”: associations, conventions, seminaries, and national youth groups. Ekklesias have been redefined as mere buildings where these para-church groups hold sway, while self-professed members of the “universal church” float aimlessly in and out of them, receiving no discipleship or doctrinal training from the church leadership itself. For many modern Christians, the ekklesia has become the red-headed stepchild of God’s ultimate plan.
But the ekklesia--the functional local assembly--was the sole institution created by Christ to spread the Kingdom to all nations until “every tongue shall confess God” (Rom. 14: 11).
For more on this topic here are good articles by Thomas Williamson and Glenn Kerr, and a good book called Ecclesia by B. H. Carroll.
3 comments:
I appreciate the clarity you bring to this issue. I have read and studied some on this and have come away a little confused - is it just semantics or is there really a problem with the idea of a "universal body of believers"?
I will definately chew on it.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on tying this with the idea of Church Succession
Wow, somebody read the whole post without falling asleep. Thanks, Cindy.
I don’t think there’s a problem with the idea of a universal body of believers. But that’s not the Biblical definition of a church. A church has an organization, officers, ordinances, and a purpose (like a military unit); “all believers worldwide” don’t. So calling something a church that isn’t one dilutes the meaning and impedes the function of real churches. Isn’t that the argument Christians have against gay marriage?
The universal church idea started with the Catholics (which, of course, means “universal”) because as a state religion with an international leader they truly were universal (but not truly a church).
To me it’s just another case of people making up something that’s not really there and then running with it. I would put it in the same category as purgatory, infant baptism, two separate Second Comings, and other dubious doctrines. Some people would say it’s harmless, but if it’s not clearly taught in Scripture why preach it as dogma? Why not just say “the Kingdom” or “citizens of the Kingdom” instead of “universal church”?
I’d have to think about the church succession thing. I would just say that there have always been Biblical ekklesias on earth since Christ ascended (because he promised as much) and that that fact doesn’t require belief in a universal church. What do you think?
(sleep? what's that?):)
I would totally agree. All the families in our congregation take turns cleaning the building each month and if someone says, "It's our week to clean the church", Colby usually says, "No, God cleans the Church, we just clean the building." The words we use do mean something.
On succession...I have comments and questions and will get to those when I don't have a birthday party to go to. priorities, priorities
Post a Comment