Did Christ establish two kinds of churches? (Part 2)

(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.

Did Christ establish two kinds of churches? (Part 1)

Pop quiz: is this a) an ekklesia, b) a kirche, or c) a universal church?

Most pastors I know teach that there are two kinds of churches. Once you are saved, they say, you automatically become a member of Christ’s church, which is an invisible organism composed of all believers worldwide, living and dead. They call this the “universal church.” Later, if you wish, you can join up with a more quaint and less pure local assembly, which is also called “the church.”

But does the Bible really teach two kinds of churches? Specifically, does it speak of a “universal church”? I don’t think it does. I think the idea of two churches is confusing and self-contradictory and ultimately weakens the institution that Christ established to spread the gospel message.

The words “church” and “churches” appear about 115 times in Scripture. With one exception, the word is always translated in the original Greek as ekklesia (in one instance, the English translators loosely used the word “churches” in reference to particular buildings--specifically, pagan temples). So ekklesia is the only word used to describe the New Testament church. Ekklesia has a specific meaning: it literally means “called out” or “summoned.” Christ did not invent the word: it was commonly used in that time to refer to “a summoned assembly”—such as the “town council” meetings in ancient Greece. The disciples would have interpreted it to mean not just “an election” but “an assembly of the elect.” Today we might use a term like “congress.” Of course a nebulous universal affiliation cannot assemble or convene.

[The English word “church,” by the way, is taken from the German kirche which refers to an actual building, making the whole discussion even more confusing since nowadays we wrongly think of a church as a building.]

There is no separate Greek phrase in Scripture connoting a “universal church” as opposed to an ekklesia. This fact alone is enough to do away with the teaching of a separate universal church. There is no passage in Scripture that claims there are two different kinds of churches. There is no passage that explains the differences between two such “churches.” There is no passage that suggests the word ekklesia is to have more than one definition.

The confusion comes when the word “church” is used in the singular. Christ and the New Testament writers sometimes use the generic singular to describe something that is plural. For example, “the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church” (Eph. 5: 23). Here Paul is using the idea of a generic church rather than one specific local assembly. He no more means that there is a “universal church” than he means that there is a “universal husband.” In fact, the concept of a universal husband is as much an impossibility as the concept of a universal local assembly. So this usage is the generic singular: each husband is the head of each wife, even as Christ is the head of each ekklesia. Here is another example: “…if he [the unrepentant church member] shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church” (Matt. 18: 17). He doesn’t say, “tell it unto the church at Jerusalem,” or some other specific local assembly, because He means the principle to apply to all churches, plural.

Yet another example is found in Mathew 16: “I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (v. 18). This does not mean “I will build one church only,” but rather, “I will build my (generic) kind of assembly.” If God had said in the Garden of Eden, “I will establish the family,” we would plainly understand that He was using the generic singular to describe multiple units of one type. The same applies to “the church”: an ideal type, manifested as multiple real individual assemblies.

Once we understand the usage of the generic singular, the doctrine of a “universal church” becomes less tenable and less necessary.

Speaking of...

...Schoolhouse Rock, we bought the entire collection on DVD and the kids love it. It's a great supplement for math, history, science and grammar. It's amazing to think that these were shown on network TV instead of commercials. Maybe the network felt guilty for feeding us a steady diet of junk like "Jabberjaw" and "Captain Caveman," and this was their penance.

Here's one of my favorites: "Three is a Magic Number" by jazz musician Bob Donough.

And for some hilarious comic relief, here's a knockoff called Public Schoolhouse Rock.

If you liked that, there are two more here and here, with some mild bad language.

Schoolhouse Rocks

The transformation is complete. The old red dining room is now the new blue schoolroom. (And it didn't even cost the taxpayers one cent).

The expected class size this fall is three students, with a fourth showing interest.

Who is Abraham's seed?

This is a vitally important question, because Abraham’s seed is to be the recipient of great promises. The Bible says all the nations of the world will be blessed by Abraham’s seed. It says his seed will number as the stars of the sky and inherit the world. So who is it?

Unfortunately, many Christians interpret the phrase carnally. To them the seed is the Jews and national Israel. To them the seed is spread not by the Spirit but by sperm. How many times have you heard that the Jews are God’s chosen people, or, more incredibly, that Christians must act reverently and deferentially toward the current inhabitants of political Israel—regardless of their relationship with Christ?

The problems with this view are numerous.

One obvious problem is that Abraham had many children, yet the seed was passed only to one: Isaac. Ishmael was a carnal seed of Abraham, yet tradition tells us he was the father of the Arabs. After Sarah died, Abraham remarried and had many more children who had nothing to do with Israel. God “hated” Abraham’s grandson Esau and excluded him from the line of blessing. So right off the bat most of Abraham’s carnal seeds were out of the running.

So what does it mean to be of the seed of Abraham? Rather than me rambling on, let’s see if Scripture makes it clear.

“Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham” (Galatians 3: 7).

“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3: 26-29).

“For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed” (Romans 9: 6-8).

“For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith” (Romans 4: 13).

Pretty straightforward. The seed represents faith in Christ. If one of your children believes, he is of the seed. If another of your children doesn’t believe, he is not of the seed. It actually has nothing to do with genetics. The genetic descendants of Abraham are not necessarily God’s people. In fact, they never were. They were only considered so on an individual basis if they were saved by grace through faith in the Messiah.

The Sunday school song actually gets this right:
“Father Abraham had many sons, and many sons had Father Abraham.
I am one of them and so are you, so let’s all praise the Lord.”

That’s not a song to be sung by ethnic Jews only, though they can certainly sing it if they are saved. And one day, most of them will sing it (Romans 11: 26)--along with the majority of the world (Psalms 22: 27; Isaiah 2: 2; Habbakuk 2: 14).

So if Christians are the seed, they will number as the stars of the sky, they will cause all nations to be blessed through the “gospel of the kingdom,” they will inherit not just a sliver of dry land in the Mideast, but the world. It will not be a political dominion but a spiritual one.

Kind of changes the perspective doesn’t it?

Dispensationalists have to devise a theology that takes Christians off the map (the imminent Rapture) so that national and carnal Israel can supposedly receive all those promises. But the promises were never given to national Israel or Abraham’s fleshly offspring. They were given to those who, like Abraham, have faith in Christ.

Caption Contest

Okay, who can come up with the best caption for this picture?

The Preacher Behind the Bill of Rights

[This biographical sketch first appeared in The Pillar].

On March 22, 1788, James Madison had reason to be distraught. He had just gotten word that the popular Baptist preacher John Leland was going to oppose his election as a Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention. “Then I am beaten," Madison soberly reported to the messenger. "Yes," came the reply, "unless you can convince him."

Leland had been a champion of religious freedom since his conversion to the Baptist faith in 1774, and he feared the rumors (spread mostly by Madison's opponents) that the distinguished politician was lukewarm about securing that freedom for all citizens. Madison set off on his horse that cold March morning and rode toward Orange County, Virginia, where he was told he could find the strong-willed pastor, to set the record straight. The two met on a road six miles out of Fredericksburg and sat down in an oak grove on the side of a hill.

They could not have been more different. The small, well-dressed Madison had attended Princeton and (with Washington and Jefferson now in Philadelphia) was the most celebrated and respected leader in Virginia. Leland, on the other hand, wore only homespun suits, was uneducated, and spent his days walking from county to county preaching the gospel.

They talked through the afternoon. The sun went down. They talked into the night. At length, Leland sprang to his feet and declared he was now convinced of Madison's intention to establish religious freedom and would support him.

"The rank and file of his counties will follow him," a close friend previously reported to Madison. And they did. The Baptist support of Madison, led by John Leland, nudged him into victory over Patrick Henry and consequently secured the narrow passing of the U.S. Constitution. Madison had heard Leland's previous complaints: “there is no Bill of Rights," Leland pointed out. "What is clearest of all — Religious Liberty is not sufficiently secured." It is no surprise, then, that it was Madison who personally introduced the Bill of Rights to Congress, complete with Leland's demands for freedom of religion and freedom of the press.

The story of John Leland's life is as rich as any novel—full of humor, adventure, intrigue, and crisis.

But how did Pastor Leland, born into humble beginnings in Massachusetts, come to be such a prominent influence among Virginia villagers and aristocrats alike? The simplest answer is: the zeal of his preaching. Shortly after his salvation, Leland became a Baptist pastor and moved to Virginia with his wife. He became an itinerant preacher, travelling across counties--and even states--to declare his belief in the Baptist principles of salvation by grace, believer’s baptism, and the individual's liberty of conscience concerning religious matters.

But it was an uphill fight. As late as 1714 there were no Baptists in Virginia. When the Baptists did arrive and began to preach freely they were fined, imprisoned, and sometimes whipped by the authorities of the church-state. Leland's tenacity in overcoming these odds became more and more evident and eventually found its way into the state's folklore. He decried state religion, saying, "The Gospel Church takes in no nation, but those who fear God, and work righteousness in every nation." He welcomed slaves into his services as spiritual equals. He performed a baptism while threatened at gunpoint by angry relatives of the candidate for baptism, and preached an entire sermon under these same conditions.

The establishment churches in Virginia tried desperately to discredit him, but by the time they took pastors like Leland seriously, the Baptist revival had gained too much momentum. Virginians had had too much of the dry and barren pedantry of the High Church. "The great doctrines of universal depravity, redemption by the blood of Christ, regeneration...are but seldom preached by them," Leland wrote. By the close of the 18th century, the Baptists were the largest denomination in Virginia, due largely to John Leland's ministry and example.

In his later years, Leland lamented the encroachment of committees and organizations within the Baptist church and gained a reputation for railing against these systems of church government. In 1792 he took his ministries back to Massachusetts and continued his powerful, down-to-earth preaching in several churches there. When he died in 1841 the colorful and controversial John Leland left behind a legacy of incessant witnessing, Bible-based revival, and religious freedom—a legacy to which all Christians are indebted.

Family Discipleship

Some thoughts from Voddie Baucham.