How did we get it
wrong? How do we get it right?
Eκκλησία - Ecclesia
Preparing
lectures on the subject of Politics and doing a certain amount of research and
study on the subject set me questioning and thinking … hopefully pushing
further than I have considered before.
The course I
have designed with lectures and presentations on politics is all from a
Judeo-Christian ethical perspective.
I have also
been attending studies in theology (*1),
which impacts my political perspective.
The more I
look at the New Testament part of the Bible and note both the words of Jesus
and the practice of Paul as he goes from City to City, ending up in Rome, I
have to ask something significant. Noting the original Greek language used, I
cannot help but wonder if we have got it wrong in the definition and meaning of
the word "church".
The language
used was highly political in its delivery in the historical times of the New
Testament. I cannot believe that Paul, the
clever guy that he was, did not understand the political language that he was
using and the political effect that it would have.
So, "King
of Kings?" Jesus? As far as people in the Roman world were concerned, of
course, Caesar was "King of Kings," and woe betide you if you
publicly disagreed. Then, Jesus was apostolically proclaimed as the "Prince
of Peace." Indeed, Paul would have known that Caesar was self-proclaimed
as "the Prince of Peace" and that he was living in the days of "Pax
Romana" (the Peace of Rome). Pax Romana, of course, was brought about by
conquest, violence, tyranny and force of arms.
Other
political titles and attributes ascribed to Jesus the Christ were officially
and infamously attributed to Caesar. Cesar was proclaimed "Lord of Lords".
Caesar was the "Saviour". Caesar was also, of course, declared to be a
"god," and nowhere was it permissible for this Jesus of Nazareth to
say that he is the "I am", i.e. God. Even the resurrection was a
political statement. Death is supposed to be the ultimate victor. Jesus was
being proclaimed as the conqueror of death.
"Jesus? The Saviour of the world? No! That is Caesar!"
Caesar was held as the Saviour.
By Roman Law, all
this meant that what Paul taught was blasphemy against Caesar and by roman law
was illegal, punishable by death. Paul was teaching that Christ was higher than
the emperor. This was interfering with and contradicting much of Roman political
norms.
Jesus, of course,
constantly refers to the Kingdom of God; This certainly was not to be perceived
as the Kingdom of Rome or confused with the rulers of the world. Take note;
however, the introduction of another Kingdom would definitely be seen as sedition.
On top of all this,
interestingly, what Paul was planting in the various cities that he visited on
his journeys and continued to write letters to, were not "church's", but εκκλησία, i.e., Ecclesia. The thing to note is that every
City would already have had an acknowledged "Ecclesia." The Ecclesia
was the governing body of the City, the called-out ones, the ones to organise
the City. The ultimate town authority was commonly referred to as "the
Ecclesia".
It is also interesting
to note that William Tyndale (1494 – 1536), the first translator of the Bible
into common everyday English, never uses the word "church" in his
translation, apart from the reference to the temple of the god Zeus in Acts
chapter 14 and verse 13. At all other times, he translates the Greek εκκλησία (Ecclesia)
as "congregation", much to the annoyance of King James 70 years later.
Hence, the 1611 KJV of the Bible emphasises (i) "Bishops". (ii) "Church,"
as it is now commonly perceived, and of course, (iii) the "Divine Right of
Kings." All big problems to Tyndale.
I cannot
believe that the intelligent Paul did not understand the political
ramifications of his language, using words like Kingdom, Saviour, Lord, Peace,
God, and εκκλησία -Ecclesia. So, what was he doing?
It seems to
me that what "church" has created is, in many places, a "bless
me club", an exclusive, "Meet me in the building," holy huddle;
A total opposite to the instruction of Jesus, which is, "Go into the world
at large. I am leaving you in the world".
Was Paul planting city-changing leadership, i.e., εκκλησία?
So it often
seems that these "church clubs" are simply competing with each other
for the most fans, much like a football club?
For a lot of
my lifetime, especially in my younger years, people have asked me, "What is
it you want to do?" My answer hasn't changed much, even up to today: "I
want to change the world." I still do!
So, how
could that εκκλησία – ecclesia work in a real-world situation? Or better still,
how should it have worked?
I know that
people like the ex-vice present of the USA. Mike Pence subscribed to "The
seven mountains theory" and perhaps wanted to see the approach put into practice.
The Basic thesis is that the church (i.e., Christians) should take Dominion
over the seven mountains of society/culture, establishing a Theocracy. "The
way to achieve Dominion is … to have kingdom-minded people in every one of the
Seven Mountains: 1. Religion, 2. Family, 3. Education, 4. Government,5. Media,
6. Arts & Entertainment, and 7. Business. In this way, they could use their
influence to create an environment in which the blessings and prosperity of the
Kingdom of God could permeate all areas of society. (*2)
My big
problem with the above is a complete understanding (or misunderstanding) of
Dominion, which is the idea that Christians rule, dictate and use power to make
the culture comply. That seems to me to be counter to the revelation of a
servant King, a God who washes people's feet.
I have long
believed that we should be persuading, as per The Bible, 2 Corinthians chapter
five and verse 11. We (i.e., followers of Jesus) are in the influencing and
persuading work. Not the ruling, dominating and strong-arm power people. To do
that, we need to affect the cultural leaders, the cultural moulders, politics,
Business, Education, and Arts Entertainment areas. (*3)
Yet, it is
true that if we want to change the world, we must be responsive and, as Jesus
said, be "in the world". "In the world" as salt, protecting
that which is good is what salt does. "In the world" also as Light. Shining a way to new values, the new Kingdom
principles, a better way of living – now; This is not something that happens when you
die. We need to be 'in' the world, which means 'in' all of those levers of
culture that make the world what it is.
Of course,
we need to acknowledge that the early first-century εκκλησία (Ecclesia as
referring to followers of Jesus, not members of the Roman Town council) did
change the world. We can see this as Pliny the younger (61 AD to 113 Ad) writes
to Emperor Trajan, worried that the Temples to the Roman gods were emptying. This
phenomenon was caused, he says, because of the Christians. He then outlines to Trajan the values of
these εκκλησία (i.e., the groups of followers of
Jesus.).
Here is what
Pliny wrote to Trajan: "They asserted, however, that the sum and substance
of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed
day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind
themselves by oath, not to some crime, not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery,
not to falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to
do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and assemble again to
partake of food and ordinary and innocent food.
Do we need
to become the εκκλησία again; Salting and Lighting our culture and changing the
world with the new Kingdom values?
We also need
to remember that we live in Babylon. The Kingdom of God can be brought down to
our time-space world, but we do not live in that Kingdom geographically. That
is why we need to know when to compromise with Babylon, and as best we can pray
blessings on it. Babylon is where we have to live for now.
*1. Martins Scott's studies in
Theology
*2 David Woodfield Dissertation
Thesis April 2017
*3 Dr Donald Howard Educator
Adrian
Hawkes
Adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk
W.
1418
No comments:
Post a Comment