Vince Deagler

religious verbiage can be tricky business.  as an evangelical i am of the conviction the bible teaches we must personally receive jesus as our savior and lord.  i will spare you all the subtle nuances and details.  if you have questions regarding this i would be happy to go into the details, it’s just not where i’m going right now.  so getting back on track, how would you understand the idea of receiving christ???  many of you are thinking of a faith commitment right about now, the surrender of ourselves to christ, turning from self rule to christ’s rule.  not to be offensive, but do you know what it means to many roman catholics???  they think of the mass, receiving the wafer, otherwise known as “the body of christ”.  but when i use the phrase “body of christ” as i did in the above title, i was not referring to the wafer used in the roman catholic mass.  see what i mean, religious verbiage can be tricky.

so, what do i mean when i use the term “body of christ”?  i’m glad you asked.  It is a common way the bible refers to the functional church (as opposed to the non-functioning church in prospect or “universal” church”).  i say that because in the new testament the church was a functioning entity.  i am not denying the term church can be used to refer to those “in christ” from pentecost to the rapture (often referred to as the universal church), it’s just that the universal church is a futuristic prospect, not a present tense functioning body.  that church hasn’t yet been assembled, won’t be until the rapture, and basically does not yet exist.  the functional church in the new testament was the localized community of believers which started in jerusalem on pentecost and eventually permeated the “uttermost parts of the world”.  They were organized, had defined leaders, had a sense of mission, and were accountable to each other to follow (obey) all the teachings of christ. the epistles were written to these churches.  the apostles were given “the great commission” (matthew 28:18-20) by christ just before he ascended back to heaven, in effect this was a passing of the baton.  in response, they established local churches (the functioning body of christ) throughout the roman empire.  this is how they understood the mission would be fulfilled, how the work of christ would be continued even though jesus had returned to the father.  sadly, i am of the mind that because we have drifted from an emphasis on the local body to the more pc/less accountable/less efficient universal model of the church, the mission is suffering.

as i understand the body analogy, especially in 1 corinthians 12, christ is the head of the body.  there is great diversity within the body (many members, foot, hand, eyes, ears, etc) but it functions as an integrated, singular unit.  god sets the members in the body as he desires, and because of this reality, everything the body needs to fulfill the mission is available within the body itself.  if the body is to function as god intends, every part of the body must contribute per its design/giftedness, there can be no division within the body, and the individual parts of the body must care for each other.  whenever any of these 3 operating principles are lost, the body suffers. 

in my next few blogs, i plan on focusing on the body of christ.  i am very biased as a pastor, but i cannot think of anything more important.  when we take our place in the body, fulfill the role for which we were designed, we literally are partnering with god in an eternal work that transcends time and space.  we are engaged in the work god has chosen to redeem the world.  and although it seems as if satan is invincible, rest assured the gates of hell will not, cannot overcome the church…the body of chist.  in fact, in my mind, i do not know how you separate christ and the church…his body. 

but that is what many believers do.  they are a part of the church in prospect (often called the universal church, those “in christ” beginning at pentecost and extending to the rapture).  but for whatever reason, they have not chosen to be a part of christ’s functional body.  if that describes you, i sure hope you consider what we have covered today.  why are you not a part of an organized community of believers, with defined leadership, engaged in a mission, practicing accountability to each other?  if that is what christsaid he would build, and in fact did build…if the initial followers of jesus understood the mission to be the establishment of localized churches (bodies of christ) that would continue the ministry of christ after he ascended back to the father… shouldn’t i be a part of that?  shouldn’t you?  is there a valid reason to do otherwise?

i’d love to hear your thoughts.  i’ve shared mine and will go a bit deeper into the body concept in a few days.  thanks for reading.  blessings, vince