An exchange on a list I'm on, re the concept of 'Open Membership' in Baptist Churches - and the relevance of this discussion to notions of 'Church' and 'Kingdom'.

It seems that we need to ask ourselves afresh about the nature of the church. Rowland assumes that church = kingdom of God.

Not really/quite... see below...

Nathan appears to make a distinction between the two. The former argument adopts a very Catholic view of church, which assumes that only those who are in the visible church are in the kingdom.

This would not be my position either

The latter finds the church joined around some form of covenant, apparently less exclusive in its understanding (though not always historically practised as such!)

I like the notion of covenants for our churches...

If we assume that only those who are part of the visible church are part of the kingdom, does it necessarily follow that every visible church must have a framework which allows all to become members? Or can it be that the basis for covenanting together as a church community allows for the possibility that there are some christians who will not - for sake of conscience - be able to join? Can such a position be held without somehow diminishing the view of those whose conscience is so exercised?

Good questions. My point in these exchanges is that in the (admittedly, very rare) situation where someone is working through their theology of church/sacraments, we should not deny them membership of the Christian community, which is a congregation of people 'on the way' in all sorts of respects... However, I'm a strong believer in catechetical teaching before church membership. In that context it's very rare for someone not to agree that (some form of) baptism is the 'door into the church'. My hypothetical situation is simply addressing the need to live lives of grace while people wrestle with this, and all sorts of other issues. (I've known people who were severe 'hydrophobics' who took years - for that reason - to muster the courage to be baptized). But, again, that process does not preclude the church's formulating its own doctrinal 'Statement of Faith', nor of having some form of protocol for 'voting' in terms of the theological position espoused in that Statement.

I find myself more of the view that a church has not only the right, but the responsibility to define its calling and covenanting, recognising that such distinctions are not only important, but the essence of gospel - that we can agree to differ, and celebrate that diversity, without diminishing the nature of gospel or church (we might even enhance it by such). While Eva Burrows might choose not to join in membership of our local church, we can still serve the kingdom together, and see no problem in that. But the door is always open to her, just as I hope it would be for me in another church tradition.

But she has to be physically baptized to join, eh? Meanwhile baptized fornicators and schismatics remain in the membership of many (_most_, in the case of the former category!) of our churches. Sumpink wrong there :-)!

I'll leave it there for the moment....

Gary

Here's a summary of my (admittedly off-the-cuff) view of the relationship of Church and Kingdom. This little exercise takes me back to MCD BD Theology days, 30 years ago. (Exciting!). Some of you out there with a greater breadth of reading/reflection in this area might like to comment:

~~~

Perhaps any separating of the concepts of 'Church' and 'Kingdom' is artificial. We do not want to separate the Kingdom and the Church any more than we separate the Kingdom of God from the person of Jesus Christ. In Jesus Christ, the Kingdom of God is proclaimed and present at the same time. What then are we to make of the Kingdom's presence in light of the fact that Jesus' earthly ministry has ended? In summary: Christ's Church is called to be a faithful sign, symbol, and foretaste of the Kingdom of God.

(In the past century, we have seen a shift in thinking about Church and Kingdom. For example, American Protestant Liberalism was fairly indifferent to ecclesiology [the doctrine of the Church]. William Newton Clarke, and William Adams Brown, two leading Christocentric Liberal theologians ignored the doctrine in their systematic theologies. And many in the Social Gospel movement feared that focusing on the Church would in some way detract from their fixation on the 'Kingdom of God'. Neo-Orthodox theologians took an opposite position. For them, the church is a 'sign' of the Kingdom, and its message pointed to a Kingdom - not of our making, but of God's. Their contribution has influenced subsequent Protestant and Catholic [Vatican 2]

thinking about Church and Kingdom. Another product of this interest in the Church has been a renewed appreciation of unity/cooperation with other Christians at local, national, and world levels).

Jesus came to inaugurate the Kingdom, the reign of God, in our lives, in our communities, in the world. We, his followers, do in our world what Jesus did in his (John 20:21). That is, the Church continues Jesus' mission in the world. The Church is the visible 'witness' to the Kingdom. So the Kingdom is present in the Church, inasmuch as the Church is the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.

IOW, we in the Church are committed to the practice of Jesus' 'core kingdom values' (particularly love, justice, grace). We therefore must resist any moves to 'discriminate' against anyone on any other basis. In practice, the kingdom is present when we are 'generous', as in an open, shared table, which is a sign of the community of 'mutual otherness' and mutual respect for otherness.

More specifically, there are many 'signs' within the life of the Church which point to the Kingdom - the sacraments; preaching the Word (the Church is 'the herald' of the Kingdom of God); the compassionate servant-role of the Church in a world of injustice; humor and joy (which, according to Karl Barth, defuse the 'uptightness' of legalistic ideologues of left and right); miracles (including casting out demons: 'If it is by the finger of God that I cast out devils, then the Kingdom of God has come upon you,' Jesus said to those who did not believe in him). So the church is a prophetic community, doing the works of God and speaking the words of God. The Church is a sign of the kingdom of God to the extent that it demonstrates a kingdom lifestyle.

And of course, every Church or Christian denomination is only a tiny part of the Kingdom (and not be _equated_ with the Kingdom as Christian 'sects' and the pre-Vatican 2 Roman Catholics presumed).

We are not in the promised land, yet. The Church-on-earth is in this sense the 'scaffolding' of the kingdom. When the building is completed the scaffolding is removed. So the Church is the 'firstfruits' or 'foretaste' of the Kingdom. We pray for God's kingdom to come 'now', and also 'then'. Was it Karl Barth who said 'In Revelation's New Jerusalem there is 'neither temple nor sword' - no church, no state?'

'Nuff of my ramblings. Gotta get back to the BUV Professional Standards/Code of Ethics reading...

Shalom!

Rowland Croucher