by T. Austin-Sparks
Next to the Person of Jesus Christ the Church has
been, and continues to be, the great battleground of
history. So much so is this the case that an
ever-increasing number of books, journals, periodicals,
'Councils', 'Convocations', discourses, etc., are
occupied with this matter as a primary concern. But most
of all this is CONTROVERSIAL, thus justifying the
phrase 'the battleground'. This is all very significant,
indicating that it is a primary matter, and that it is
something which does hold a position in the forefront of
accountability. Rightly it does, and perhaps much more so
than ALL this writing and talking understands. It
is a primary concern in the whole cosmic realm, the
super-mundane sphere, if we are to take both the
practical evidence and the definite New Testament
statements seriously. For instance, the whole letter to
the Ephesians, and particularly 3:10 and 6:12.
It may seem to be arrogant and ambitious for us, who,
being of such little account in ourselves, and by the
medium of such an insignificant a means as this little
paper, to think that we can handle this immense matter to
any advantage. Having had this as a primary concern for
so many years, and having seen the Church and the
churches in so very many places from Far East to Far
West, with much prayer exercise over it, perhaps we may
be given something to say which throws some light into
the shadows or darkness of the immense confusion which
exists in relation to the Church. We are especially
concerned with the matter of local-assembly expressions
of the Church, for only there can the real meaning of the
Church be brought to immediacy.
We have to begin by asking the question which includes
everything else, and which really expresses the problem
in many minds:
CAN WE NOW ACCEPT THE POSSIBILITY OF TRUE LOCAL
EXPRESSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH?
This question - and there is not a little, but very much,
to give rise to it - has, because of its acuteness,
received many answers, or has been attacked in many ways.
Some of these are as follows:
1. A large section of Christians have answered definitely
'NO', and they base this upon what they term 'the total
ruin' position. They say that the Church is in
unredeemable ruins, and therefore a corporate expression
is no longer possible. Of course, they especially relate
this to the Church universal, but they bring it very
close by arguing that at the end-time everything will be
individual. The basis of this is that in Revelation 2-3,
where the Lord directs His address "to HIM
that overcometh". Well, that is argument No. 1.
2. Then there are those whose answer is that the only
possibility now is an approximate expression of the
Church. That is, there can be no full and complete
expression, but something comparative, provisional, and
partial. There can be SOME features, and we must
build upon SOME things which we perceive to be in
the New Testament. In large instances the major
denominations represent this position. Presbyterians base
their whole position upon one interpretation of New
Testament Church order, as they conceive it. The same is
true of Lutherans, Congregationalists, Baptists,
Methodists, 'Brethren', etc. For each and all of these
the term 'Church' is employed. But it is a concept which
is a convenient solution to the problem namely, a partial
approximation.
3. Then, there is the answer which is expressed by what
is called 'Sublimation'. That is, that the Church is a
sublime conception and idea. It is idealistic, and we
must live in the abstract realm of a sublime conception
and not try to bring that 'down to earth', be too
practical and demanding in reality. This answer and
interpretation is expressed in the term 'The Church
Mystical': but not practical.
4. There are those who have written off the whole idea of
Church, either as impossible or unnecessary. They are
definitely Christian Institutions and organizations, but
not a Church or churches. To this category belong the
Quakers, the Salvation Army, and a vast number of mission
halls, and 'Missions'.
5. Finally for our purpose, there are those whose answer
is a very positive one! Yes, we must return to the New
Testament pattern 'and have New Testament churches'! They
believe that the New Testament contains a definite 'blue
print' for local churches, and they are committed to 'FORMING'
such wherever possible. Unfortunately, they vary very
much as to teachings, emphases, and practices, and some
of them are characterized by excesses, abnormalities and
exclusiveness.
Well, what are we going to say to all this?
As we see it, all are MORE OR LESS wrong or right
(we underline 'more or less', but we would say that some
are totally wrong), because the TRUE nature of the
Church has been either lost or lost sight of.
The history of Israel has a lot of light to throw upon
this matter of the Church. Historic Israel was
constituted upon the same eternal PRINCIPLES as
the Christian Church. Indeed, they were called "the
church in the wilderness" (Acts 7:38), and they were
termed God's elect. They were intended to represent in
time on the earth an ETERNAL and HEAVENLY
concept. In types and symbols to figuratively and
temporally embody spiritual principles and Divine
thoughts. For our purpose here we have to narrow this all
down to the main principles involved in their history. We
divide that history into two phases. The one before, and
leading to, the captivity in Babylon the seventy years.
The reason for that captivity was purely and definitely
idolatry. The captivity dealt with that, and after that
there was no more idolatry OF THE SAME KIND in
Israel. But then came - and still exists - the second,
and both worse and longer, phase of judgment. This is
revealed in the second aspect of the ministry of the
Prophets. It is obvious that the Prophets prophesied in
relation to the immediate future of the Babylonish and
Assyrian captivity, and also in relation to a time
further on. This second aspect is often taken up in the
New Testament and applied - or shown to apply - to those
times and events, with the extra feature that post-New
Testament times (unto our day) were visualized. But why
this second and longer and more terrible relegation to
judgment? Why Israel's confusion, weakness, and loss of
the IMMEDIATE presence and power of God, and only
His sovereignty BEHIND their history? The answer
is in one phrase - "spiritual blindness".
"Blindness has happened to Israel" (Romans
11:25). There is a great deal about this in the Gospels,
and both the teaching and miracles of Jesus were directed
to and against this blindness. The giving sight to the
blind was a testimony TO ISRAEL, as well as to the
world. This blindness, however, was particularly related
to the Person, the significance, and the purpose of
Christ. That intervention in history was a mission to
redeem, recover, and reestablish that ETERNAL
concept in the heart of God, which was as 'the mystery'
in Israel: that is, the SPIRITUAL principles and
meanings HIDDEN in their temporal election and
constitution, and to embody it all in a Person who was to
be reproduced by the Church, as the Corn of Wheat,
through death, being reproduced in resurrection in a
corporate body.
There we have touched the very heart of the true nature
of the Church. The touchstone of the Church is a SEEING
by Divine - supernatural - Holy Spirit revelation and
illumination the real significance and meaning of Jesus
Christ and His mission. It is so evident that the great
Apostle of 'the Mystery' - the Church, came to his
knowledge and understanding of the true Church by way of
the revelation of Christ to, and in, him (Galatians
1:16).
To truly see Christ is to see the Church, and only so can
there be a true church. It was when the Lord was able to
say of Peter that 'flesh and blood had not revealed the
truth of His (Christ's) Person' that Christ immediately
made the first definite announcement about the Church:
"Upon this rock will I build my church." This
all means, that fundamentally, a true expression of the
Church, locally, is not more, nor less, nor other, than
the spiritual apprehension of Christ by believers. The
Church, local or universal, is not traditional. That
would make it second-hand and therefore artificial. The
Church cannot be seen through other people's eyes,
whether those others be of the past (Apostles, etc.) or
present (teachers).
We have known people to live in the presence of the
teaching for years, and rejoice in it, repeat it,
eventually to prove that they had not really seen with
their own spiritual eyes by contradicting and discarding
it all too easily. They had seen it mentally through the
eyes of someone else - the teacher or preacher. When Paul
SAW, it effected something in him that became
himself, and no amount or form of suffering and outward
disappointment could make him depart from the
"heavenly vision". We repeat, that all of his
rich and full understanding of the Church did not come,
in the first place, from a revelation of some thing
called 'the Church', but from a seeing of Christ as in
the eternal councils of God. As the very foundation this
answers the five points which we earlier mentioned, and
answers them comprehensively. Can there be local
expression of the Church? Yes, given that such a seeing
and apprehension of Christ is present, and we must
dismiss the Holy Spirit and His work if we say that such
a seeing is not possible now (Ephesians 1:17-18).
But having made the statement, it is necessary to say
more as to the essential PRINCIPLES of a local
church as a microcosm of the Church universal.
The first (included in what we have said above) and the
most difficult to explain, although not to experience, is
in that misunderstood, disliked, and frowned-upon word -
spirituality. It should not be difficult to understand,
because any and every true born-anew believer knows that
there is something about him or her that is not just
natural. A change in mentality, disposition, concept,
gravitation has taken place in them. They are just
different since the new birth took place. (We are talking
nonsense about the Church if this fundamental change has
not been effected.) But we still have to define
spirituality.
As a word and an idea, spirituality is not peculiar to
the Bible and to Christians. The world uses it. For
instance, in visiting a picture gallery, some pictures
are looked at and the viewer passes on. But another
picture holds the attention, for there is something more
than canvas, paint, and an object depicted. That picture
has an "atmosphere" about it: it touches the
emotions; it stirs a sense of wonder; it is not just
something in itself. There is something more about it
than itself. The remark about that something is that
there is something 'spiritual' about it. The same thing
can be said about a song; the execution of a piece of
music; an ornate and beautiful building; a form of
service; and so on. This is what the world calls the
spiritual. But what they really mean is mysticism. This
can be particularly found in literature, and there is a
category of writers known as 'the Mystics'. Religion is a
special realm of mysticism. Let us say at once, and with
emphasis, that mysticism and true spirituality, according
to the Bible, are two entirely different things. They
belong to two different realms. The one is temperamental,
or a matter of temperament. It has its degrees. The
simple response to beauty and emotion: or in more intense
forms it can be psychic, fanatical. It can be induced by
pathetic or tragic appeals. It can be worked up to
excitability and paroxysms by repetitions - as of
choruses and incantations. Thus, either mildly or
extravagantly, AN EXTRA ELEMENT can appear or give
character. Religion lends itself peculiarly to the
mystical in these various forms and degrees.
But the spirituality of the Bible of which we are
speaking is different. It is the result of a new birth by
the Holy Spirit. It represents A CHANGE OF NATURE
and constitution, not the release and intensification of
what is already there. Indeed, it is an "altogether
other", just as Christ was - in the deepest reality
of His person - an altogether other. In that 'other' He
was not known, understood, and explicable. He was
inscrutable. Not just mysterious, but of another order.
There was another intelligence and consciousness. There
was another capacity and ability. There was another
relationship. This is all true of the individual believer
by reason of being "born from above". (See John
1:13, 3:6-7 margin) The Church is the aggregate of SUCH
believers, in which what was true of Christ is true of it
- deity apart.
He and it are the spiritual MEANING of all
symbols, and He definitely said that with His coming the
old order of material, symbolical representations had
entirely given place to that which they represented. It
was no longer things to REPRESENT, but that which
they represented WITHOUT THE THINGS (see John
4:20-24) and note that John's Gospel and the Letter to
the Hebrews are two great documents of the great
transition from the historic, the temporal, the tangible,
to the spiritual. The Apostles were moved by the Holy
Spirit into that transition. It cost them travail to be
so born again, but they got through by Divine energy.
So spirituality, which is a heavenly other nature and
endowment, is the first basic principle of the Church.
Let us repeat that the Church is the vessel and
embodiment of "the mystery" so often referred
to in the New Testament, especially by Paul, and the
mystery WAS and is the hidden MEANING of
things, and of Israel, but which mystery is now revealed
to and in the new order, the new Israel, the Church. The
"mystery of Christ" is the meaning of Christ,
inscrutable to all but those who have "the spirit of
wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him"
(italics ours).
Our space is gone, so we must continue later. There is
much more to say.
In keeping with T. Austin-Sparks' wishes that what was freely received should be freely given and not sold for profit, and that his messages be reproduced word for word, we ask if you choose to share these messages with others, to please respect his wishes and offer them freely - free of any changes, free of any charge (except necessary distribution costs) and with this statement included.