First response to post
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...10&postcount=9 regarding the kingdom:
I’ve been giving this some thought over the past week or so as to how I would respond in this debate with regard to the “kingdom of the heavens.” Looking back over some responses I did notice that here were some similarities in our arguments and so rather than addressing directly the matters in which we disagree, I thought I might present this first response as a clarification to you on how I see the kingdom. In doing so I hope to emphasize those matters upon which we agree and also to help contrast (at least in my mind) the matters upon which we may disagree.
I think to begin there needs to be a little clarification as to what is and what is not “the kingdom.” Whereas I believe that most Christians are taught that there is only one kingdom – the kingdom of God – in the book of Matthew there are actually two kingdoms being spoken of. You may be familiar with this if you’ve ever read the Recovery Version or had been in the Lord’s Recovery for any period of time. I think that acknowledging Lee’s theology regarding “the kingdom of the heavens” and “the kingdom of God,” at least to some degree, is important in this discussion to help clarify that these two aspects have varying expressions.
So to make this as short as possible, simply if you refer to the RcV’s footnote 4 to Matthew 5:3 you will get the definition. The kingdom of God is God’s eternal reign from eternity past to eternity future. It includes all of the created items, including the earth, humanity, etc.; and it includes what we call “the kingdom of the heavens,” which is not a separate kingdom itself, but rather a very specific aspect of God’s eternal realm. The kingdom of the heavens came, or “drew near” by Christ’s incarnation, and is essentially the church as the
practical expression of Christ, who is the king, on the earth.
Now, the issues we were discussion were pertaining to the expressions of the kingdom in various ways. As I recall your argument, you were stating that the church meetings are not in and of themselves the
only or primary expressions of the kingdom of the heavens, and I agree with that. However, we were also discussing “the church life,” which you disagreed was anything but the attendances of the saints in various meetings, conferences, etc. If I understand that correctly to be your argument, then I could not more disagree. I equate “the church life” to be the totality of one’s interactions with Christ primarily and with the body of Christ secondarily. To me, the “church life” is literally my Christian life.
Where I think some of the confusion lied (And perhaps where some of our differences lie) is our understanding of “expression.” Something that is “expressed” in my opinion relates to an inward nature or inherent quality being outwardly experienced or viewed. So the church has an inward nature – that of Christ – which is experienced inwardly (spiritually) through prayer, through fellowship, etc. both individually and corporately, and which is expressed outwardly. Lee identifies these two aspects: The experience he calls “the reality” and the expression he calls “the appearance.” Therefore, the kingdom of the heavens can be identified as a “body of believers” which has Christ as their king. Why? Because they have the nature of the king (His life) and they have the headship of Christ – the king – as their authority. Paul identifies this kingdom as a “commonwealth” in the heavens in Phil. 3:20 and identifies its constituents as citizens in Eph. 2:19.
In my next post I will deal with a couple of specific comments you made with regard to the LC in your response.