Few Christians realize that the central concepts and practices associated with what we call ‘church’ are not rooted in the New Testament, but in patterns established in the post-apostolic age and/or our own culture. In any of the figures of speech describing the church, none of them refer to an institution organized along the lines of a public school? Many religious teachers divide our obligations into two areas — individual obligation associated with individual action and church obligations associated with collective action. The church to which they have an obligation is associated with the responsibilities of membership in the corporate body.
In the next blogs, I would like to explore this church organization that some mistakenly describe as the blood-bought institution. From where do these originate, from heaven or of men?
THE TERM “INSTITUTION” DEFINED
1. Established Practice or Law.
The word “institution” may refer to established practice or law. The phrase, “to institute” is the act of initiating or establishing law as when Jesus “instituted” the supper in his memory. We may speak of the institution of marriage or government (Romans 13) as being ordained by God. With this definition, anything God has ordained, authored and set in motion becomes an institution. “Headship” is an institution (1 Cor. 11), as is “servanthood” (1 Peter 5:5, Eph. 4:12, Romans 15:1-3). “Work” is God-ordained, i.e., instituted by God. Essentially, anything established as a practice of law can be described as an institution, according to the dictionaries. For example, God established the law of marriage and it is clear from Genesis 2:24 that two become one flesh.
2. Corporate Organizations
Not only is the word institution used to denote the establishment of law or practice (Lord’s Supper, marriage), but the word is also applied to formal organizations that have a set of fixed rules, procedures and structures. The point is already recognized without going to greater lengths to prove it. An institution is a society or organization founded for a religious, educational, social, or similar purpose. Merriam-Webster explains, “Organized work is delegated to those within the organization to attain the goals of the organization.” This is the local church organization. The word “church” is often used to refer to the “blood-bought institution” (the church), established and instituted by God. Among the membership, it is even recognized that all members of the local organization may not actually be numbered with the saved. These are two entirely different meanings given to our word translated, “church.” One describes saved individuals, while the other describes local church membership. The consistent definition we have given our Greek word, “ekklesia,” is the same in both contexts. The “ekklesia” is the saved, called-out people whether applied universally or locally. Human perception and personal knowledge of people has nothing to do with it because God is the one who assembles or adds them. The apostles had fellowship with Judas even though his relationship to God was ingenuine. It wasn’t for them to know because such an identity was not based on their determination. One can certainly be associating physically with others who are not “of them” (2 John 3:..). Yet, unless their sin becomes manifest, we continue to participate with them. Whether locally defined or not, the “ekklesia” is that body of saved ones (or “the being saved ones”). This poses a problem when local Christians form themselves into a local church organization and claim membership in it is God-ordained. You are forced to give the word another application and meaning. You are forced to conclude that the “ekklesia” can also describe a local church organization with some unsaved members. How can a local church organization with unsaved people be considered the ekklesia of God? The only way this works, of course, is to find two (some would add a third) definitions of the word. Our use of the word is consistent. If applied locally, the being saved ones living in a certain area are the ekklesia in that location, whether we have a list of names or not. This misuse of the word is the source of much confusion and division.
One might conclude that there is no harm in this approach or method of local interaction. However, many church traditions teach this as being bound by God. Some teach that one must be a member of the local church organization to be saved. A shift is made from God’s collection of saved individuals (ekklesia) in a given location to a local church organization that formed an agreement to secure a building for worship, form a working fund, hire the workers, place men in charge who will delegate its work to the membership, and manage property and funds of that local church organization. Suddenly, the definition changes from the saved to an organization for the saved. Why the change? Why isn’t it still saved people in a certain location? Someone may argue that it still is the saved, even though they offer a disconnecting statement by admitting that membership to it does not make it so. By definition, if it is an established practice or law ordained by God, what scripture would we use to teach it? What arrangement, law, or practice did Jesus purchased with His blood? Jesus did promise to build His ekklesia (“called-out”, Matthew 16:18) and Paul did write that the called out was purchased by the blood of Jesus (Acts 20:28). What exactly did he buy or build? The answer comes back loud and clear that Jesus purchased called-out people. Is that an institution like a High School? If, as we have shown, the church is blood-bought people, what passage teaches that the church is a blood-bought institution? Or, where do these blood-bought people form an institution called “the local church”?