What is an Ecclesia?

THE
TESTIMONY

Article from Special Issue Vol. 61, No. 729, September 1991

REMEMBER THY CREATOR IN THE DAYS OF THY YOUTH

Pages 301-306

“These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church [ecclesia] of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:14,15).

THE ECCLESIA: “THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF THE TRUTH”

REG CARR

In choosing, very early on in their history, to call their small congregations of believers ‘ecclesias’ rather than ‘churches’,(Footnote1) Christadelphians were making an important and positive statement about the distinctive nature both of their association with one another and of their relationship with God. The word ‘church’ was considered quite inappropriate for describing those who, having ‘rediscovered’ the true Biblical faith of the first-century apostles, were meeting together on a different basis from all others who called themselves Christians in the nineteenth century. Conscious of their separateness from a Christendom which was so far ‘astray’ from the Bible, and which so many of them had gladly left behind, the early Christadelphians were seeking to identify themselves as closely as possible with the original followers of Jesus, whose basis of faith and life they shared wholeheartedly.

It was their unanimous view that the word ‘church’, referring as it does either to the various ‘Christian’ denominations whose doctrines they rejected or, more often, to the ecclesiastical buildings of such religious groups, had become “objectionable through association with un-apostolic ideas and institutions”.(Footnote2) Ekklēsia being the original New Testament Greek word for the early Christian assemblies,(Footnote3) it was a natural and deliberate step for them to choose the anglicised version of the word (‘ecclesia’) to describe each local community of the Christadelphian brotherhood—a practice which has continued for over 130 years, and which as long as it persists will help to highlight the distinctiveness of the Christadelphian body and to emphasise its separateness from the rest of the religious world.

An ecclesia is about people

Whereas a ‘church’ in many people’s minds is a building, an ecclesia is a group of people, “an assembly of the called”, which is the literal meaning of the Greek.(Footnote4) For those of us in the happy position of being Christadelphians, and who thereby belong to an ecclesia, the term should be a reminder not just of our “calling” by God (Gk. klēsis, as in Eph. 4:4; Phil. 3:14; Heb. 3:1, and elsewhere), but also of the fact that we have been called, not into a building made up of literal stones, but rather into a spiritual temple made up of people who are being fashioned for eternal life by their Creator. Unlike a church, which is built of inanimate materials, an ecclesia consists, by definition, of people, of men and women who are “called to be saints” (1 Cor. 1:2). In responding to the invitation from God through the call of the gospel, therefore, we come, as the writer to the Hebrews puts it, “to the general assembly and church (Gk. ekklēsia) of the firstborn, which are written in heaven” (12:23).

We associate ourselves, in other words, with those people who, in like manner to ourselves, have been touched by the Word of God and have thereby been “begotten . . . again unto a lively [that is, a living] hope” (1 Pet. 1:3,23-25). It will become apparent, in our consideration of the role and purpose of the ecclesia, that people, with all their social and spiritual needs, are what a true ecclesia should be about.

“The pillar and ground of the truth”

Brother J. B. Norris has identified five main uses of the word ekklēsia in the text of the New Testament.(Footnote5) First, the term refers to the original body of believers in Jerusalem (Acts 5:11); secondly, it is used of various communities of believers, like those subsequently formed in the different cities of the Roman Empire (1 Thess. 1:1); thirdly (but rarely), it is used of a partial assembly of a larger group of believers (3 Jno. v. 6); fourthly, it refers to the community of believers throughout the world, the body of Christ, the Brotherhood (Eph. 1:22); and lastly, it is sometimes used of a house-meeting, as in Philemon verse 2 or Colossians 4:15. Though it is not easy to say whether Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy 3:15, that the “church (ekklēsia) of the living God” is “the pillar and ground of the truth”, is an example of the second or the fourth category of usage, it is essentially those two categories which are of particular relevance to us in our modern context, where ‘the ecclesia’ almost always means either the local ‘meeting’ or the worldwide Brotherhood (usually ‘the Ecclesia’ with a capital letter).

Paul’s definition of the ecclesia as “the pillar and ground of the truth” is most significant. It underlines the fact that the purpose of associating together as fellow-believers in the Lord Jesus Christ is twofold: first, to build up all the individual members of “the house of God” (1 Tim. 3:15), and so to “make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Lk. 1:17); and secondly, to undertake the public declaration of the gospel message to the outside world. These twin aims are embodied in the words “pillar” and “ground”.(Footnote6) The Greek word stulos (pillar) refers to the supporting strength of the believers themselves, which they gain and share by fellowship together. (There is an example of this in action in Galatians 2:9, and the eternal ‘strength-in-fellowship’ öf the believers is symbolised by the word “pillar” in Revelation 3:12.) The Greek word hedraioma (“ground”) is, literally, the ‘basis’, or the ‘foundation’ which gives stability to everything which is built upon it. Within the context of the ecclesia and of the personal faith of each of its members, that foundation is the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 3:11); and it is in the degree to which that foundation has been firmly laid in the heart and mind of each believer that the corporate witness of the ecclesia to the Truth will thrive. As Paul tells Timothy, therefore, in the context of these two important features of ecclesial organisation and life, it is by bearing in mind this twofold purpose of an ecclesia that each individual member will learn how “to behave . . . in the house of God”.

Towards the ideal ecclesia

Though the ideal picture of the long-term development of the Ecclesia of Christ, the whole Brotherhood of the saints of all ages, is presented to us in Ephesians 2 in the figurative language of a “building fitly framed together”, growing “unto an holy temple in the Lord” (v. 21), there is no example in the Word of God of a perfect individual ecclesia in New Testament times. A number, like those at Jerusalem, at Philippi, or at Philadelphia, seem to have come as close as any to the ideal; but, since ecclesias consist of people, the reason for the general imperfection is not far to seek, for people themselves—including the saints in Christ—are by no means perfect. Even Paul, who gave up “all things” for Christ, and made himself the Lord’s bondservant (Phil. 3:8; Rom. 1:1), had to admit that he had not “already attained”, and that he was not “already perfect” (Phil. 3:12).

...If ... we expect too much of our brethren and sisters, we run the risk of being demoralised. Yet, if we do not have high standards and aims, we shall not find ourselves pressing “toward the mark ...”

Such honesty with ourselves is clearly necessary if we are to avoid disappointment at the failure of any ill-founded illusions we may hold. If, in particular, we expect too much of our brethren and sisters, we run the risk of being demoralised. Yet, if we do not have high standards and aims, we shall not find ourselves pressing “toward the mark . . . of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:14). It is not easy to find and to keep that important place on the scale between pessimistic realism and unrealistic optimism regarding the level of human performance in the ecclesial setting. But recognising our own imperfections, as Paul did, will certainly help us to be less critical of those around us; esteeming others better than ourselves, as Paul exhorts us (Phil. 2:3), and doing all things “without murmurings and disputings” (v. 14), will help to ensure that our own ecclesia makes at least some progress towards the ideal state. Peace and harmony in ecclesial life make it possible for the personal benefits of ecclesial fellowship to be enjoyed by all, and for the Truth to be lived as well as preached, for others to see and hear and follow.

It is from such a peaceful atmosphere of mutual understanding, of longsuffering, of sympathy and of brotherly love that an ecclesia will draw the strength it needs for the work it has to do. Knowing as we do that the Apostle John found such great joy in hearing that his children were walking in truth and exhibiting true Christian love “to the brethren, and to strangers” (3 Jno. vv. 4-6), what excuse can we possibly have for depriving our heavenly Father of that same joy?

“Decently and in order”

Our efforts to improve the quality of our ecclesial life, and to maintain the standard of those aspects of it which may already be good, will be greatly assisted by our intelligent and cooperative observance of our well-established codes of ecclesial practice, both organisational and behavioural. It is undoubtedly true, for example, that the unfailing implementation of The Commandments of Christ—that all-too-neglected appendix to virtually every ecclesial constitution and statement of faith—would of itself produce that ideal ecclesial harmony which the Kingdom alone will reveal in all its fullness (Rom. 14:17).(Footnote7)

Our imperfections, however, require that our activities should be regulated by procedures which, because they are based on Bible principles, are bound to minimise our natural tendency towards selfishness, and to promote the maximum benefit for the greatest number of ecclesial members.(Footnote8) Several decades of ecclesial experience, and a familiarity with Bible teaching possibly unequalled among Christadelphians of any generation, enabled Brother Robert Roberts, the first editor of The Christadelphian, to draw up what we now know as The Ecclesial Guide, a set of procedures designed to help ecclesias organise their affairs effectively and efficiently.(Footnote9) These procedures, however, have an all-important spiritual basis, for their aim is to observe in practical terms the major principle contained in the Apostle Paul’s inspired command to the unruly Corinthians: “Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40).(Footnote10) As Paul says in that same context, “God is not the author of confusion [or tumult, as the AV margin puts it], but of peace” (v. 33), and it is therefore vital for His spiritual children to arrange their communal lives in such a way as to reflect those Divine characteristics as far as they possibly can.

The operational framework of the typical Christadelphian ecclesia and the general conduct of its meetings will be found to follow a fairly standard pattern, a pattern which has been tried and tested, and which seems unlikely to be seriously modified before the Lord’s return.(Footnote11) The willing service of unpaid brethren and sisters appointed to certain necessary tasks; the holding of meetings for breaking of bread, for Bible study, and for preaching the gospel; the absence of elaborate ceremonial; the adherence to an agreed statement of faith, summarising a common understanding of Bible teaching; the practice of total immersion of consenting believers; the maintenance of exclusive fellowship on the agreed basis; the balance between ecclesial autonomy and ecclesial interdependence; and the submission to the authority of the Word of God in all matters of belief and practice—all these remain key features of the Christadelphian ecclesias which they share with their first-century antecedents.(Footnote12)

The major difference today, however, is the significant absence of the Spirit-guided eldership of apostolic times. In considering the work of the ecclesia when dealing with practical and personal questions, therefore, and in looking particularly at the key role played in such matters by today’s arranging brethren, it is important to understand that such authority as they may have is bound to be of a very different order from that of elders who, in the first century, were appointed and governed directly by the Holy Spirit itself (Acts 20:28).(Footnote13)

“One is your Master . . . and all ye are brethren”

The head of every Christadelphian ecclesia—of the whole Ecclesia of the saints—is the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:22; 5:23,24). He it is who walks “in the midst of the . . . candlesticks” (Rev. 2:1), ‘the ecclesial lightstands’ as we would call them today. “Where two or three are gathered together in my name”, said Jesus, “there am I in the midst” (Mt. 18:20). It is therefore his will, his law, and his word which are to be followed and applied in ecclesial life; and it is only in so far as they adhere to this invariable principle that the brethren appointed to guide the affairs of an ecclesia have any derived authority to carry out their tasks. “The ecclesia does not appoint masters but servants”;(Footnote14) yet it is the responsibility of the arranging brethren to ensure that the ecclesial flock (in which they themselves are also sheep belonging to the Great Shepherd)(Footnote15) is provided for in every aspect of its need, whether social, spiritual, corporate, or individual. It can be a demanding but rewarding role, and it is one for which they themselves “must give account” (Heb. 13:17). To that extent they need, and hopefully receive, the willing cooperation and sympathetic understanding of their ecclesia which has, after all, elected them to serve.(Footnote16)

The unity of all the ecclesias in the Christadelphian Central Fellowship, under the headship of the Lord Jesus Christ, is on the basis of the One Faith contained in the Word of God and summarised in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith (BASF). Yet the faithful application of the principles and beliefs embodied in that statement, and the detailed decision-making in the corporate life of each individual ecclesia, rests with the members and, by delegation from them, with their arranging brethren, ‘the elders’. Theirs is the task not simply of practical, but especially of spiritual guidance and leadership, hence the necessity for them to conform to the personal qualifications laid down by Paul in 1 Timothy 3 and elsewhere. Their often difficult and delicate responsibilities in the ecclesial family require an elusive combination of firmness and of tactful sympathy, and presuppose a measure of personal experience and evident ability in the natural family, hence the importance of Paul’s statement that such men must be able to command respect by their personal example, set and maintain the right tone, keep the peace, promote and defend the principles of the Truth, expedite the business of the ecclesia in a spiritual manner, and protect its members as much as possible from the pernicious influences of the outside world. Their work, in other words, is the responsibility of parents transposed into the circle of the ecclesia, where they are entrusted with ‘watching for the souls’ of their spiritual family (Heb. 13:17).

Our “brother’s keeper”

With a solid basis in the Truth (of which it is the “pillar and ground”), with an avowed intent by all its members to aim for high standards of behaviour and witness, with effective procedural arrangements, and with spiritually-minded brethren to serve and guide it, the ecclesia should be well able, with the blessing of God, to perform its appointed tasks. Responsible to the Lord for its own affairs, yet one in him by ties of fellowship with a wider community of believers, the individual ecclesia must ensure that the varied needs of all its members are being met. As in the family circle, so in the ecclesia, no concerns should be too small, no problems too large for sympathetic consideration, advice and help. If the groundwork has been well done, many difficulties will be avoided; if not, they must be squarely faced, in love and with a desire to resolve all the issues to general satisfaction. Though tact and confidentiality may often be required in dealing with personal matters, no doubt should be left about the ecclesial standards on morality and belief, which should be openly discussed and well understood. It is the responsibility not just of the elders but of every member to ensure that sound, health-giving words are the normal currency of ecclesial life. We owe it to our Lord and to one another to see that this is so; we are, every one, our “brother’s keeper”.

Immorality, idolatry, personal rivalries and disputes, wrong doctrines of every conceivable hue, worldly philosophy and materialism—the first-century ecclesias were strangers to none of these problems; and the consistent message of the New Testament is that each ecclesia must seek the remedies by its own application of Divine principles in practice. As Jesus foreordained (Mt. 18:17), the ecclesia must be the place and the means of judgement and resolution of conflicts and difficulties among the brethren. Corinth itself had to deal with its own severe moral problems, even if it needed Paul to sting it into action (1 Cor. 5:3-13). Ephesus had to ‘sort itself out’, knowing that, if it failed to do so, the Lord Jesus would put an end to its existence as one of his ecclesias (Rev. 2:5).

Though our twentieth-century problems may have new labels, there are no grounds to suppose that our ecclesias today can shirk the responsibility for trying to solve them ‘in house’ (to use a curiously appropriate piece of modern jargon). Marital problems, both in the ecclesia and in the world, are more common and more complex than in days gone by; medical science has given new twists to moral questions (abortion, sterilisation, euthanasia), or it has given rise to entirely new ones (artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood); and ‘old’ moral problems have become more pressing in recent years, with such deviant sexual behaviour as homosexuality beginning to acquire a kind of spurious acceptability.

As a result, today’s ecclesia cannot afford the luxury of closing its eyes to such issues, even if ideally most of these things ought not to be so much as named among us (Eph. 5:3). And the last thing that should be encouraged by the ecclesia, either by its own default or by a deliberate policy, is recourse to ‘expert’ advice on such matters from the world outside. “Worldly counseling is of little value to brethren in Christ for our entire orientation is different from that of the world. The key thing is to understand the objectives and principles of God as revealed in His Word and endeavor to apply them in love and holiness”.(Footnote17) If the Apostle Paul could instruct the brethren of his day to have nothing to do with external institutions in the resolution of personal problems (1 Cor. 6:5-8), and if he could insist that the world should have no part to play in the judgements that properly belonged within the framework of the ecclesial family (1 Cor. 5:12,13), what possible justification is there for us to act differently today? The world outside is the enemy of the ecclesia as it is fast becoming the enemy of the family.(Footnote18) It has nothing to offer to us as the children of God, only false ideas and false ideals (1 Jno. 2:15-17).

The ecclesia, on the other hand, is our spiritual home, our spiritual family, the channel through which we receive the benefits that flow to the children of God from their heavenly Father: fellowship, spiritual food, forgiveness of sins, personal support, and wise counsel from likeminded brethren and sisters. Truly in the ecclesia, and only there, are the psalmist’s words fulfilled in our own experience: “The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places; yea, I have a goodly heritage” (Ps. 16:6).

FOOTNOTES

1. In the 1850s, before the term ‘Christadelphian’ was coined, Dr Thomas used the expression “The Royal Association of Believers” to designate the group of like-minded brethren and sisters with whom he met in New York; but it became the generally accepted practice to use the term ‘ecclesia’ to describe the early congregations of believers, in line with the detailed reasons subsequently laid out by Dr Thomas in 1861 in Eureka Vol. 1 (pp. 119-123). For a short time the brethren and sisters in Birmingham referred to their meeting-place as “The Christadelphian Synagogue” (see The Ambassador, 1867, p. 302), but this practice did not last long, for understandable reasons.

2. Robert Roberts, A Guide to the formation and conduct of ecclesias (Birmingham, The author, 1883), p. 3 (The Ecclesial Guide).

3. It occurs 112 times in the New Testament, and is translated ‘church’ 109 times and ‘assembly’ 3 times in the Authorised Version.

4. This definition is from Robert Roberts (A Guide . . . op.cit., p. 3). Dr Thomas explains the etymology of the Greek word ekklēsia as follows: “Ecclesia . . . is a word compounded of . . . ek, ‘out of, and . . . klēsis, ‘a call, or invitation’. Hence an . . . ekklēsis, is ‘an invitation to come out’; and the assembly of people convened in consequence of their acceptance of the invitation is an ecclesia” (Eureka, Vol. 1 (1861), p. 120).

5. J. B. Norris, The First Century Ecclesia (Birmingham, The Christadelphian, 1951), pp. 12-13.

6. Brother Roberts identifies the same two aims in the following remarks in The Ecclesial Guide (p. 9): “The objects of ecclesial operations are two-fold: 1—the edification (or refreshment, encouragement, strengthening, or building up) of its individual constituents in faith . . . 2—the exhibition of the light of truth to ‘those that are without’”.

7. “. . . such a state of things cannot be reached until Christ comes, who will separate the unholy element everywhere, and . . . ‘present to himself a glorious ecclesia, without spot, without wrinkle, or any such thing’” (Robert Roberts, Ecclesial Guide, p. 11).

8. “Rules are necessary because of our imperfections. By them we seek to preserve both order and individual liberty”. Harry Tennant, Taking heed to the Ecclesia of God (Birmingham, The Christadelphian, 1987), p. 13.

9. In Brother Roberts’s own words: “In all communities, large or small, there must be order and mutual submission, in order to attain the objects of their existence” (Ecclesial Guide, p. 10).

10. The present writer has expounded this authoritative commandment in some detail in the article “The organisation of the Christadelphian community” (The Testimony, July 1988, pp. 260-4). The word “decently” is there shown to be referring to quality of personal behaviour (as in Romans 13:13, “Let us walk honestly, as in the day”, where the word “honestly” is the same in the original as “decently” in 1 Corinthians 14:40). “In order” is shown to have reference to orderly procedural arrangements, as in Luke 1:8 and Hebrews 7:11, where the same original expression relates to priestly duties carried out by strict rotation.

11. Writing about the 1886 Constitution adopted by the Birmingham Ecclesia, which was based on the principles of the Ecclesial Guide, Brother L. G. Sargent says: “This has set a pattern which has been widely though not slavishly followed by ecclesias all over the English-speaking world” (The Christadelphian, Nov. 1951, p. 333).

12. See Reg Carr, “The organisation of the Christadelphian community”, op.cit., p. 264.

13. “In the apostolic ecclesias, the Spirit of God, by the hand of the apostles, or other Spirit-endowed persons, nominated and appointed such special brethren, in virtue of which appointments the rest of the body were bound to yield a ready submission to the rule and authority so established” (Robert Roberts, Ecclesial Guide, op.cit., p. 10).

14. Ibid., p. 12.

15. “The flock does not belong to him [the arranging brother] and he has no authority of himself. He is an under-shepherd and should strive to follow the leadership of Christ”. Harry Tennant, Ye servants of the Lord (Birmingham, The Christadelphian, no date, p. 38).

16. “If we have appointed brethren to take decisions on our behalf, we forfeit any right to carp and criticise while they are endeavouring to carry out their task to the best of their ability . . . we have imposed upon ourselves a responsibility as great as that which we have laid upon them—that of prayerful support” (Alfred Nicholls, Taking heed to the Ecclesia of God, op.cit., p. 8).

17. Don and Ellen Styles, Family Life in the Lord (South Australia, Christadelphian Scripture Study Service, 1984), p. 6.

18. “There has been in the last decade an increasingly vociferous minority proclaiming ‘liberated’ views about the supposed inadequacy of the family unit . . . From the point of view of God-fearing men and women there must be no ‘freedom’ to tamper with the divine arrangement, and anything which corrodes or diminishes the importance of the family is evil” (Michael Owen, Family Life in the Lord, op.cit., p. 32).

Next Article in this Issue

THE TESTIMONY

THE
TESTIMONY