Communion Ecclesiology in a Racially Polarised South Africa

Front matter

KELEBOGILE T. RESANE sb

Communion Ecclesiology in a Racially Polarised South Africa

Published by Sun Media Bloemfontein (Pty) Ltd.

Chapter 1 The biblical understanding of communion

The Word of God must be channelled from past history into ongoing history. Those who have received the Word of God are called upon to pass it on. This process passes through human hearts, human minds and human patterns of behaviour. It involves communities and institutions. It is a never-ending task, which we call biblical hermeneutics. Hermeneutics retrieves the meaning of the Word of God from these ancient documents and interprets it in such a way that it speaks authoritatively and redemptively to our contemporaries in their own situations (Nürnberger 2004:7).

The Old Testament scholars over the years, are in agreement that the God of the Old Testament is the God who always sought communion with His people. Not only that, He is the God who is communion himself. This is demonstrated by the involvement of the Trinity in the creation story. The motif: “Let us’ in the Genesis (1:26, 11:7) record is a unifying communal notion of the communion of the Trinity. The God seeking communion with his creation was compelled by the imago Dei that human beings carry. The persons of the Trinity always consorted and consulted for mutual decisions and actions. It is not surprising to hear the theological debates on the diverse roles of each of the persons of the Trinity in creation.

From the Old Testament, the children of Israel worshipped God ina unique way. God was never seen as a remote being controlling the events of the universe.

Hence, the Old Testament refers to God in anthropomorphic descriptions such as loving parent, considerable friend, and powerful king but still the stress is none frequently on the distance between God and man, perhaps because Old Testament writers were reacting to the cultic religion of Israel’s neighbours (Alancheril 2014, par. 1.1).

God and the worshippers saw themselves as the intertwined corporate personality. In other words, wherever His people were, there you find their God. The patriarchal period particularly surfaces God as the nomadic God - moving with His people wherever they went. The people responded to this nomadic God by building the altar for Him wherever they settled. These altars were the visible presence and significance of God dwelling with His people - the communion that was not just acknowledged and realised but also experienced and appropriated.

From the patriarchal period to the time of wilderness wanderings, God has always been in communion with His people. The nation of Israel always sought unity with God in their worship, regardless of diversities that were notable among them. Their worship manifested the need to enter into communion with God. Thus God saw himself as the genuine member of the community with His people. He anthropomorphically described himself to his people. They did likewise by describing him as a loving parent, friend, and king over their lives. This, however, did not bring them closer to him as they frequently expressed the distance between God and humans. This made their faith unique - not to be confused with the religions of their foreign neighbours. The Old Testament discusses the notion of communion by stressing the mutual sharing among God's chosen people, who co-exist as corporate entity.

The patriarchal period reflects some form of restlessness and nomadic lifestyle of the people of God. In fact, from the time of Noah (Gen. 8:20) to the time of Jacob at El-Bethel (Gen. 35:7), building the altar was the acknowledgement of the presence of God in their midst. In reference to Abrahams settling in Shechem and the Negev, Eugene Merril (1994:77) points out that ‘at each of these places he built an altar, a symbol of his new faith and of the awareness of the presence of his God wherever he went (Gen. 12:4-9)

These symbols, in some instances, were given names as a memorial of God's communion with His people. This can be captured by the altars known as El Elohe (Mighty is the God of Israel) by Jacob in Shechem (Gen. 33:20); and the other one in Bethel, called El Bethel (God of Bethel). Wherever they settled, they acknowledged God’s communion with them through these symbols.

The altars as the symbols of God communing with and among His people continued through the Mosaic era. In fact, Moses himself built an altar (Exod. 17:15) and called it Jehovah Nissi (The Lord is my Banner). This was a reminder to the nation of Israel that their God dwelt among them, despite the surrounding hosts of enemies. God is with His people even if they are in the seas of masses of other people. As a communing God with His people, He is with them wherever they go. When God appeared to Moses in a theophany on Mount Horeb in a burning bush, for the first time after four hundred years, God revealed himself in an audible voice by identifying himself as the I AM (Exod. 3:14, 6:3). Merril explains:

This name, simply the first person singular of the Hebrew verb hayah (‘to be’), would indicate to Israel that God was the one who eternally exists and that he would be more than sufficient to protect, accompany, and bless them every step of the way (1994:111).

During the Egyptian exile (a period of about 400 years), God seems to have taken absence of communion with His people. The exiled nation was in a foreign land without religious and political leadership. There was no cultic centre, and no canon to guide them. By taking them out of Egypt, God’s intention was to resume communion with His people. The rationale behind their departure from Egyptian political leadership was clear: Let my people go... so that they may have communion with me. This has been expressed differently as sacrificing to the Lord, serving the Lord, having the festival with the Lord. It was difficult for people under oppression to enjoy communion with the Lord, hence, the Lord had to take them out in order for them to enjoy this communion.

From Sinai when the Law was given to the time of King Solomon, God chose to dwell among His people as a visible object known as a tabernacle. God commanded Moses that the tabernacle should be built so that ‘I will dwell among them (Exod. 25:8) and then I will dwell among the Israelites and be their God (29:45). Stephen F. Olford agrees that “God's word to His people was not only that he wanted to dwell among them, but also to meet with them’ (1978:31).

The tabernacle was the symbol of God’s presence among his people. God’s people camped with God through the wilderness wanderings. The tabernacle was the symbol of His communion with His people. The metaphoric design of the tabernacle distinguished God’s people from the Gentiles. According to Pentecostal educator and theologian, Kenneth Archer:

The outer hangings of the court (hasér) enclosed a perimeter measuring fifty by one hundred cubits. This court was designed to separate Israel as a holy possession of God and keep it distinct from the Gentiles. The same principle was rigorously observed in the later temples, both that of Solomon and that of Herod (in which was found a Greek inscription threatening the death penalty to any Gentile who should venture beyond the barrier into the inner court) (1985:243).

Further inside the tabernacle (later the temple) was the qōdesh qoddshim (Holy of Holies). One of the items in this chamber was the aron habberit (the Ark of the Covenant). It ‘represented the presence of God in the midst of His people’ (1985:244). It can be observed that the structure and the construction of this tabernacle, together with its centrality among the tribes, occupy a large space in the Law. Wood highlights that ‘there was need for it to be central, for, being God’s own sanctuary, it represented His presence among the people’ (1970:151).

Exodus 40:34 informs us that, at the conclusion of the construction of the tabernacle, God’s glory filled it. In other words, God’s presence once on Sinai has now come over the tabernacle. Victor Hamilton (1999:235) enlightens us that at this time the tabernacle completes Mount Sinai. Sinai is a marriage, the start of a new relationship. Now the partners must start to live together. It is from here when God declares that ‘I will dwell among the people of Israel, and will be their God’ (cf. Ex 29:43-46).

Hamilton continues:

[T]he tabernacle is holy only because it is the dwelling place of a holy God. If he leaves, all sanctity leaves too ... The tabernacle is the place where God and man can be closest to each other. Here God meets with His people (1999:235).

The altars occupy the primal place in the Mosaic Law, though the shift in symbolism and significance is observed. The altar became an integral part of the tabernacle. It became a divisive factor after settling in the land when misunderstanding arose when the two-and-half tribes of the trans-Jordan erected it. The conflict was solved amicably after negotiations and explanations ensued. The Reubenites and the Gadites built another altar (Josh. 22:34) as a memorabilia for this synergy and amicability. It was called Ed (A Witness Between Us that the Lord is God). However, the habit of building the altars continued after the Mosaic Law was completed. For instance, Joshua built an altar in Mount Ebal (Josh. 8:30), and Gideon built an altar (Judg. 6:24) and called it Jehovah Shalom (The Lord is Peace).

The Judges and the monarchical eras of the history of the nation was dominated by tensions between God and His people. People opted for secession from the communion, while God, through His servants (judges and prophets), opted for restoration of his worshippers back into the communion. There has always been some stress on the harmony of God and His people dwelling together to stabilise the socio-economic and political chaos. The shalom of God in the Old Testament has always been a triangular relationship between God, humanity, and creation.

When theocracy was taken over by monarchy, the first two kings of the new dispensations, Saul and David, built the altars. Consequent to the nation settling in the Promised Land, the institutions were created to reflect the true idea of theocracy. Apart from the political, ecclesiastical, and festival structures, the central sanctuary at Shiloh was established to ‘represent God’s presence among His people’ (Wood 1970:193). It became the central place where Yahweh, his priests and his people converged to foster their mutual communion - mostly through sacrificial worship. In other words, the twelve tribes found their one bond of unity in a central cultic centre, where their communion with their God would be deepened and take shape.

The Shiloh pilgrimages culminated in the Jerusalem pilgrimages to the temple that was built by King Solomon. The architectural features of the tabernacle featured conspicuously in those of the temple, though the temple was twice the size. The role and the place of the aron habberit reflect the same sentiment. Leon Wood, who was professor of Old Testament Studies and Dean of the Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary agrees with this and comments:

[S]ince it was the same Ark constructed earlier at Mt Sinai in the time of Moses, it had represented God’s presence in the Tabernacle and would continue to do so in the Temple. Significantly, when it was placed in its assigned location, the ‘cloud’ of God’s glory filled the building (1 Kings 8:1-11; II Chron 6:1-11), even as it had the Tabernacle (1970:296).

The temple became the symbol of Yahweh's presence among His people (1 Kings 9; 2 Chron. 7). It became a cultic centre where the nation could come and commune with their God. It represented God as a co-dweller with his people. The temple was central to the nation’s worship to their God. Indeed, ‘it had come to be the point of reference for all of life’ (Brueggemann 1984:67). It had become integrally woven with the national theology of the time. Any worship rendered outside of it was regarded as competition with Yahweh. Brueggemann continues to enlighten us that ‘its destruction thus meant the loss of a center, and a profound public disorientation, in which public meanings and values are nullified or at least severely placed in jeopardy’ (1984:67).

After the division of the kingdom, the northern kingdom insisted on seceding from the temple worship, hence the construction of the altars (cultic centres) on the borders in Bethel and Dan to stop people from going to God’s temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings 12:26-33). The southern kingdom persisted in the temple worship despite the erratic allegiance to Yahweh on their sides. For them, the temple was the representation of God's place in heaven. They held firmly to the Davidic covenant that the temple is the presence of God amongst them; hence, no affliction will befall them - internally or externally. “Like an invisible monarch, God dwells amid his people in the temple’ (Van der Meer 1966:25).

Through the history of Israel in the Old Testament, faith in God’s presence among His people took a central stage of the civil life. his presence and communion were threatened by people's departure from his commandments. However, through His agents such as the judges, priests, some kings and prophets He always called people back to communion with Him. The ministry of the judges had always been the Holy Spirit empowering them to return to the Lord as a condition for deliverance from their oppressing enemies. The monarchy instituted from the time of King Saul was to symbolise God's presence to guide them to a better life. The conditions had always been to insist on harmonious fellowship with Yahweh. The prophets constantly called people back to God in order to enjoy the best life laid out for their future. While the prophets were bringing people back to God, the priests brought God to the people. So, the temple played a major mediatorial role where God, through the priestly functions, joined His people to commune with them. As the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God, these functions and rituals were to conscientise people of these attributes. They were not designed to revoke God's attributes, as He was and is still immanent and transcendent.

The prophetic literature of the Old Testament announces the universality and continuity of God’s community in their eschatological journey. This universality is when Jews and Gentiles worship the Lord together. This is the vision of the universal worship of God, similar to what Jesus said to the woman of Samaria, “The true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks’ (John 4:21, 23) (Van Gemeren 1990:177-178).

The continuity speaks of the unbroken covenant between God and his people where grace and promise are administered to cultivate God’s kingdom (VanGemeren 1990:316). The prophetic message had always been the assurance of God's protection and blessing. The community marred by sin was always assured of God's restorational intentions. The God of justice was also the God of love. God’s communion with His people had always been an archetype of their success.

The New Testament opens with old and mostly new features or community centres that drew people into the communion. The only institution that seems to have transduced is the temple. It was the Herodian temple that was built by Herod the Great during the inter-testamental period, and the Lord Jesus Christ ministered in it. This temple was totally and finally destroyed in 70 AD when Jerusalem fell to the Roman Empire and was never rebuilt. However, its role and significance had changed dramatically during this era. It was physically beheld with some apocalyptic nuances. It was a cultic centre where the priests under the supervision of the captain of the temple carried out a censing and intoning of some psalms; performed ordinarium - a burnt offering on behalf of the community; presided during the annual festivals; and to perform private communion sacrifices such as shalom offerings (Reicke 1985:166-167).

In the New Testament, where there is an advent or the renewal of ekklesia, the textual evidence, especially in the Lukan Acts narrative, is clear that ekklesia was a communion of different individual churches. The Christian community in different locales is simply called ekklesia. The apostle Paul uses the term ekklesia to refer to different ecclesial communities. One constantly reads of Pauline references to churches of Asia (1 Cor. 16:19), the Church of God, which is at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1), and the church of Thessalonica (1 Thes 1:1; 2 Thes 1:1). One can deduce from this that ‘one Church of God is present in the places mentioned; the Church, in its full qualitative reality, is present in every local church’ (Vellanickal 2009:111).

The New Testament churches, with their cultural diversities, enjoyed communion under the headship of Christ, under the leadership of His apostles or bishops. Although these churches were culturally different, they enjoyed fellowship with each other - visibly or invisibly. Their presence in these cultures brought some dynamics to be reckoned with. Their basic unity was derived from the same apostolic tradition common to all of them tracing back to the originating event of Christ's life, death, and the resurrection. However, these churches seriously believed that there is no genuine community without active communion, without the active and mutual sharing of life, love, and truth ... Communion always produces a community of love, but community does not always produce communion (Lawler & Shanahan 1995:9).

The apostolic paradosis makes it clear that the temple is the figure of Christ's Church. Sporadically, the New Testament refers to the human physical body as the temple of God (1 Cor. 6:15-20). Its significance and role slowly took some dramatic turns. As Tenney (1971:92) highlights: ‘Only with the development of the Gentile church did its connection with Christianity ceased.’

Important is that the Jews and the proselytes of the New Testament era converged at the temple for the purpose of worship. The temple became the connection and convergence point where God's people could meet each other and their God.

The epitome of God’s communion with his people in the New Testament is the eucharist. The term sacramentum, from which is derived the term sacrament; became a sort of musterion in which Christ and His followers enter into communion. American-Dutch Reformed theologian, Louis Berkhof, in agreement with the Reformed view, maintains that it is legitimate to regard a sacrament as a holy ordinance instituted by Christ, in which by sensible signs the grace of God in Christ, and the benefits of the covenant of grace, are represented, sealed, and applied to believers, and these, in turn, give expression to their faith and allegiance to God (1941:617).

The communion is better captured by the Lukan narrative of the Acts of the Apostles, though some views are supported from other writings in the New Testament.

The early church of the Book of Acts was strong and exigent on two major concepts. These concepts are homothymadon and koinonia (togetherness and fellowship). The concepts were inseparable as they marked their unity with each other and with Christ. Immediately after Christ’s ascension, His followers gathered together in unity for mutual emotional support. They saw themselves as one body and found that this coherence to each other was their strength.

The Book of Acts does not only tell us about the origin or the history of the church. It teaches us the strategy for missions, and shows us the principles of church planting and church growth. Above all, it teaches the behavioural and ethical consonants of ecclesiastical community. In its early chapters, it highlights and captures the ecclesiological concept of the communion.

The believers of the apostolic church had fellowship in what some English Bibles call ‘one accord’ or ‘together in one place’ or ‘habitual meeting together’ For instance:

“They all joined together constantly in prayer’ (Acts 1:14). “When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place’ (2:1). ‘All the believers were together and had everything in common (2:44).

‘Everyday they continued to meet together in the temple courts... and ate together with glad and sincere hearts’ (2:46).

All the believers were one in heart and mind’ (4:32). ‘And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon's Colonnade’ (5:12), etc.

The Greek word for this togetherness is homothymadon. It occurs eleven times in the Book of Acts. One can observe that homothymadon was either for positive or negative intentions. What we learn here is the principle, ‘unity is strength. In every instance when Christians were of the same spirit and mind, God did something extraordinary - a miracle, conversion or guidance. Communion was experienced because the common interest, not personal feelings undergirded the ‘togetherness’ of the community.

Generally, the New Testament, homothymadon ‘stresses inner unanimity in response to teaching (Acts 8:6) or prayer (1:14)’ (Kittel & Friedrick 1985:684). Despite the potential or existing conflicts, unanimity is still achieved by worshipping the one Lord of the universe. The ultimate experience of homothymadon is the visible or observable action of God in the communion. Jesus impressed this truth that ‘where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them’ (Matt. 18:20). This was later expressed in the prayer of St John Chrysostom: ‘that where three or more are gathered together, there Jesus (the way and the truth) will be’ (Roden 2009:83).

This was the secret for their marture and growth. Ecclesia experiences health in and of communion by homothymadon, which is to be the integral life of the church, week-in, and week-out. If this does not happen, the church starts to plateau or decline. “There is no genuine community without active communion, without the active and mutual sharing of life, love, and truth’ (Lawler & Shanahan 1995:9). I agree with Jürgen Moltmann (1992:118) that ‘we give one another life and come alive from one another.

The common Greek word that enhances homothymadon in the Christian vocabulary is koinonia. It carries a rich meaning in the New Testament and is therefore not easily translated into English. It is usually translated as fellowship, partnership, sharing or even stewardship. It significantly carries the meaning of God's relationship with His people. In this sense, it means we are literarily partners with God. This implies we are bonded together with God for a common purpose. Nothing is withheld in a true partnership. The resources of each one are shared with the other. It is beautifully expressed by Paul in Philipians 1:3-7. Here we see the Philippian Christians sharing in Paul's suffering, poverty, message, and their own lives with him as partners in the gospel.

Sharing implies the release of everything in you to those with who you are in partnership. God has empowered and equipped humanity with all that is needed for anastrophe - conduct and godliness. The members of the communion share in his divine nature. This means that they receive that which is divine into their lives. What they receive is to be passed on to others as a catechesis. This was also a Pauline ecclesiastical conviction.

[He] challenged the Christian community to sow righteousness in doing good, sharing with the needy, walking in the Spirit, and seeking every opportunity to establish God’s righteous kingdom in all areas of life (VanGemeren 1990:114).

Koinonia also means stewardship. The communion, in partnership with God, is entrusted with a privilege of becoming special guests under his pavilion (oikos), therefore, expected to be good stewards of all that God offers on the table. The communion members accept all the resources of God and let them flow through them to the rest of the creation of God. As stewards, they receive not what is legitimately theirs, but also what is someone elses (God). God has the purpose for what He has given them (1 Cor. 15:10; 2 Cor. 6:1). The members of communion work together for the common good. The God who indwells them to be part of them, trusts them to convey his resources to other members in his creation. God does not see himself as an isolated entity, but as part of the communion with his people for soteriological fulfilments in His creation.

Koinonia enables fellowship with God. He desires to fellowship with His redeemed people. As those in communion with God, interaction with Him is a norm. The communion members are called to love Him, since He first loved them by inviting them into this communion with Him. They are called to have koinonia with God and with one another in order to experience the fullness of life (anastrophe) that pertains to his character of togetherness unity.

The important aspect of fellowship is communication. The New Testament use of ‘communication’ gives the sense of sharing. It is principally the idea of sharing together, as it is depicted by Acts passages such as 2:44, 4:32 and 36. Wagner (1994: 104) comments on this fellowship that while they were growing in their vertical relationship to God, the new believers were also growing in their horizontal relationship to each other in Christian fellowship.

The apostolic church of Acts took relationships seriously. This is confirmed by contemporary evangelical scholar, John Stott, who says:

First, they were related to the apostles (in submission). They were eager to receive the apostle’s instruction. A Spirit-filled church is an apostolic church, a New Testament church, anxious to believe and obey what Jesus and his apostles taught. Secondly, they were related to each other (in love) ... A Spirit-filled church is a loving, caring, sharing church. Thirdly, they were related to God (in worship). They worshipped him in the temple and in the home, in the Lord’s Supper and in the prayers, with joy and with reverence. A Spirit-filled church is a worshipping church. Fourthly, they were related to the world (in outreach). They were engaged in continuous evangelism. No self-centred, self-contained church (absorbed in its own parochial affairs) can claim to be filled with the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a missionary Spirit. So a Spirit-filled church is a missionary church (1991:87).

The reason for communion ecclesiology is koinonia. This is having something in common. The koinonia is strengthened by homothymadon, which means one accord or same in mind or spirit. It means siblings living together in unity (Psalm 133). Communion engrosses the fact that humanity has a common salvation through a common faith in God and in Christ Jesus. “We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ’ (1 John 1:3).

The ecclesiastical communion seriously considers the teachings, such as, ‘Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another-and all the more as you see the Day approaching’ (Heb. 10:25). This stresses a need for corporate fellowship - koinonia in its expressive form. Indeed, a togetherness in love, a koinonia.

The New Testament lends no support to the idea of lone Christians. Close and regular fellowship with other believers is not just nice, but an absolute necessity for the encouragement of Christian values. The church is the fellowship of eternal community. It is a community where one gets values and beliefs and the training in the Christian life. It is the community where one establishes the deepest and most enduring relationships in life. It is where we derive our name as Christians and our identity as children of God. It is the community where one finds a sense of purpose in life. It is a vehicle that God uses to create a platform for us to serve Him. The church is the family of God that is entered by faith in Christ.

The basic idea enhancing communion is that Christians should strengthen and stimulate one another. Christian assemblies are intended to have a positive and helpful outcome, which is encouraging one another. There is no doubt that immeasurable influence for good can come from right-minded people in association with others (Guthrie 1975). Communion is that which is in common. It means partnership with others. It is principally the idea of sharing together. It is the communion of the faithful with God in Christ through the Spirit, and hence the common participation in life experiences. Each member is in communion with God, and all are also in communion with one another. It is the communion that we enter by the act of faith. Ratzinger (2008:100- 131), in referring to Luther and the unity of the church, stresses that the act of faith incorporates human beings into the community and is simultaneously sustained by that community.

However, living together in community or communion does not mean perfection. We have to learn that the church is a communion of saints, a gathering of believers. It is called together by the Holy Spirit. It is where the gospel is purely preached and the holy sacraments are administered. The church is both a hidden community and a visible fellowship. It is hidden because faith is the conviction of the things not seen (Heb. 11:1); visible because of the preaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments.

In line with the concept of the community, the inner life of the church is the priesthood of Christians for each other. This priesthood flows from the priesthood of Christ. Sharing in Christ’s priesthood gives the right to come before God in prayer and teaching for others. The priesthood for all believers means the right to preach the word and administer discipline. The whole church is authorised to proclaim the forgiveness of sins, which is the task that gives the community some assertiveness as representative of Christ here on earth.

The church is the caring community. It plays a major role in our life by teaching us, cherishing us, and carrying us in the womb and lap and arms. It shapes us and makes us perfect according to the form of Christ until we grow to become more like Him. The church as the community insists on the right and gifting of each believer for ministry as equal partners. The community has the access to God - both as an individual or corporately. The members are therefore not the spectators, but the participants in ministry for the sake of other believers.