When a Church is not a Church, Section F

By Mark Roberts

Part 11 of series: What is a Church? Biblical Basics for Christian Community

In yesterday's post I was reflecting on the practical implications that follow from the earliest meaning of "church," ekklesia in Greek. I ended up by suggesting that the early Christian use of ekklesia did, in some sense, undermine the social order of the Greco-Roman city, with its ekklesiai (plural of ekklesia, town meeting-like gatherings to do city business). The Christian ekklesia was meant to be an alternative society, a thumbnail sketch of the kingdom of God.

So, for example, in the ekklesia of God, Jews and Gentiles, so often separated in Roman society, shared life together as brothers and sisters. Slaves could also be full participants in the Christian gatherings, enjoying equality in Christ with non-slaves, even with their masters. Women could actively participate in the gatherings just as long as they didn't engage in the scandalous behavior of the pagan cults. The theological truth that in Christ "there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female" was lived out in the Christian assemblies (Galatians 3:28). They were, indeed, a kind of alternative society, one that implicitly rejected the domineering, separatistic, and elitist values of the Roman world.

Could it be said that the church in America today is also an alternative society? Perhaps, in some places and at some times, but I fear these are the exceptions to the rule. The church in our culture tends to play a very different role than what was once envisioned by Paul and the earliest Christians. On the one hand, we often reflect the fallen values of our society rather than the holy values of God's kingdom. For example, put a church in the middle of a materialistic culture and, odds are, the church will be materialistic too. On the other hand, we have often been satisfied to play a comfortable religious role in society, offering a spiritual narcotic to soothe jangled nerves rather than an alternative way of living under God's rule. We don't want to rock the social boat. We want to find our niche in society so that society will smile upon us. Of course there are some Christians, who, like the Amish, withdraw from society in order to live as God's chosen people. But they hardly reflect the reality of what the Christian ekklesia ought to be in the world.

Christians who are active in politics, whether on the left or right side of the political spectrum, may see themselves as the rightful heirs of the early Christian ekklesia. Indeed, their desire for God to make a difference in this world does reflect what we see in the New Testament understanding of church. But nowhere in Scripture do we get the idea that the role of the ekklesia is to directly influence (or replace) the civic ekklesia. Nowhere is it suggested that the Christian assembly should "speak truth to power." Rather, the power of the ekklesia to change society comes from the authenticity of its corporate life. In the New Testament, the ekklesia offers, neither a prophetic critique of the civic ekklesia, nor political advice to the members of the civic ekklesia, but rather a whole new way of living, one that reflects the kingdom of God rather than the empire of Caesar.

I come from a denomination that has often seen itself as a counselor to the federal government and other leaders. We pass motions and write position papers, recommending to our leaders what courses of action they should take on a variety of issues. There is a sad irony in all of this, because, on the one hand, I don't think many of our national leaders care one bit about what we recommend. On the other hand, our efforts to "speak truth to power" often end up dividing us and impoverishing our own fellowship. The very thing that should be making a difference in society – our life together as an alternative community – is hampered by our misdirected efforts to make a difference in society. How I wish we'd stop trying to recommend to our government how it should act and start, instead, trying harder to get our own act together.

What would this mean, in practice, for my denomination? It would care much less about our national meetings and pay much more attention to the regular and real gatherings of our ekklesiai. It would mean that our denominational bodies would put much more energy into nurturing healthy ekklesiai than we do today. It would mean that we would strive harder to be an alternative society through our ekklesiai, one that truly reflects the gospel of Jesus Christ, one that shines as a light into our dark world. It would mean that we would see our gatherings as essential, not only to our congregational life, but also to the health of our cities. It would mean that our congregations would embrace our identity as "missional churches," fellowships sent by God to proclaim and live out the reality of His kingdom. We'd be less committed to our own self-preservation and more committed to offering our neighbors the good news of Christ, both in word and in our shared life together.