Shabbat shalom kol beit Yisra'el and Mishpachah!

Yesterday I was reading a post by some friends of ours who have caused consternation and confusion amongst their fellow Christian friends because they won't give themselves a 'group label'. 'What group are you a part of?' or 'what church do you belong to?' is not an uncommon, and certainly not an unreasonable question. We give ourselves labels 'Church of God', 'Methodist', 'Messianic', 'Catholic', and so on to help people understand in a shorthand way what we believe. We've tried all sorts of labels over the years and whilst they have been helpful at the time, we have tended to 'grow out of them' as we have moved on in our spiritual journey.

Now I'm not saying our friends are wrong for refusing to label their ministry. Not at all. Years ago in Norway we came across an international denomination who, when we asked them what church they were from, said they didn't have a name. The ironic, and slightly amusing, thing is you will find them referred to on-line as 'The Church-Without-a-Name' (or 'No-name Church'), 'The Truth' (Jehovah's Witnesses uses this designation too), 'The Way' (a name used by a modern cult ... the No-Namers like to refer to themselves by the last two titles), the 'Two by Two's' (because they do a lot of door-to-door evangelising, which is how we met them in Oslo), 'Cooneyites' (a 1928 break-off, in fact) and a whole host of other names. The group was started in southern Ireland in 1897 by a William Irvine, a break-off of the inter-denominational 'Faith Mission'. It has no 'official doctrine' because it has to be 'orally imparted to the ministers' (or 'workers' as they're called), i.e. given secretly, the sermons of the highest leaders have to be treated as 'the word of God' every time (a bit like Brigham Young of the Utah Mormons), but in reality it's about as Protestant as they get, though non-charismatic, holiness-oriented and unitarian (one Person in the Godhead). Of course, they believe themselves to be a restoration of the first century 'church' and were quite radical in insisting that ministers have no home and take no salary and, like Mormonism's Joseph Smith, claimed all other churches were false. It's a fascinating history containing a lot of object lessons about what to do and what not to do. There are many break-off, as would be expected, and they have actually registered themselves as 'Christian Conventions' (USA), 'Assemblies of Christians' (USA), 'Wahre Christen' (True Christians) and 'Jünger Jesu' (Disciples of Jesus) and 'Freunde' (Friends) in Germany.

My point is this: in the real world you can't avoid having a name. How are you going to refer to yourselves or be identified otherwise? People are going to call you something. The Irvingites and Cooneyites failed spectacularly. Now in Yah'shua's (Jesus') and the apostles' day there weren't all these denominations that we have in the 21st century and so they simply referred to themselves as 'Followers of the Way', the 'Church of God', the 'churches of God', the 'Church of Christ', the 'churches of Christ', and so on...only, of course, they didn't mean 'church' in the way we now mean 'church'. Indeed, they used words like koinonia (in Greek), meaning 'fellowship', or kehillah (in Hebrew), meaning 'congregation', and so on. Even back then all kinds of labels were used. Then the pagans started calling the believers 'Christians' in a derogatory way and the name stuck. In the West, at any rate, it became the 'Catholic Church', meaning 'Universal Church' to which 'Roman' was eventually added before the Protestants split off.

We've been debating here whether we should drop our name - 'New Covenant Assemblies of Yahweh' (NCAY) - altogether because there was a lot of agreement about the decision our friends have made. The trouble is, as I said, people will call you something once you become visible enough by having an impact on your local community and start spreading, and it might not be a name you like. Even biblical terms can be tricky, like calling yourself 'The Way', as the first believers did (Ac.9:2), but the problem is a number of cults have stolen the title, like the Irvingites and the 'Way International', and who wants be linked to a cult? Not that that makes a whole load of different because if someone wants to call you a 'cult', they will anyway. It's really just a term of abuse. Another now very large, international denomination, started by Alexander Campbell in the early 19th century, also calling itself 'Restorationist', has co-opted another biblical name, the 'Church of Christ', but that group (which inspired the founder of Mormonism) thinks it is the 'one-and-only-true-church' on the face of the earth, just like the Mormons. Indeed, most don't know that the Mormon Church originally called itself the 'Church of Christ' and a number of its off-shoots still use that title (like the Temple Lot Church of Christ). The Cambellites were a major inspiration on early Mormon leaders.

What most people find 'acceptable' - if it's man-pleasing that you're into - is that you're 'mainstream', and you only get 'mainstream' after you have been 'validated' or 'accredited' by the wider society in which you live over a longish period of time, which usually means compromising with its values in part or in whole. But again, that will vary from country to country. In Switzerland, if you're not either Evangelical or Catholic, you're a 'sect', which is what they call us here in 'Sweden' for the same reason. In Russia, you're a 'sect' if you're not 'Orthodox', and thanks to Vladimir Putin, you're now illegal. And so it goes on. Welcome to the way of the world.

I'll be honest, this question of choosing a name has driven me crazy over the years, and the truth is, you can never arrive at a wholly adequate or satisfactory one. People are going to call you something if you don't name yourselves, because we were created to be personal, relational beings, and 'naming' is fundamental to being personal. One word we don't use any more is 'church', for several reasons, because, firstly, the word comes a Latin word, circe, meaning 'circus', which comes from the pagan god, Ceres, the Greco-Roman god of agriculture; and secondly, we're not a 'building', which is what worship places are called too. Yes, the Temple was central to Old Covenant worship, but since the coming of Messiah, we are individually (1 Cor.6:19) and collectively (2 Cor.6:16) to view ourselves as that 'Temple'. In the New Jerusalem-to-come there is no temple for we are told:

"I did not see a temple in the city, because the Master Yahweh-Elohim (Lord God Almighty) and the Lamb are its temple" (Rev.21:22, NIV).

This doesn't mean that there can't be buildings in which to worship, just that they are not necessary for worship. The first believers all worshipped in each others homes, or outdoors when necessary. In communist China and the former Soviet Union outdoor worship was very common, because they had to meet in secret to avoid arrest, torture and sometimes murder. We have never built a single NCAY building in Europe or North America because we have always worshipped in each others' homes or (in Norway) in rented property. In Africa and Asia we have built lots of buildings over the years because most homes there are tiny (if they're not in the cities) and not capable of accommodating more than one family (unless you have a rich member with a big house, which we never have), renting is expensive, and you have to have shelter from heavy rainfall and monsoons in certain seasons or get out of the swelteringly hot sun.

The first mention of the word 'church' in our Bibles is in Matthew's Gospel where it is used only three times. The first appears at a special meeting at Caesarea Philippi at the foot of Mount Hermon and reads:

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church (assembly, congregation, home), and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (Matt.16:18, NIV).

This is traditionally used in a legalistic way by the Roman Catholic Church to defend it's claim to being the 'one-and-only-true-church' because they claim to possess the 'keys of Peter', meaning the authority supposedly granted them by that apostle who established the first church in Rome. He didn't, a man called Linus did, but that's another story [1]. The word translated 'church' here renders the Greek word oikodomeo meaning 'house build' which is why one translation renders it quite simply, and perfectly justifably, as "home". Messianic translations often render the word 'assembly' or 'congregation'. It means, quite simply, any homely place - a place where you feel at home - where believers gather to worship. It does not refer to an 'organisation' even though when groups of believers get to a certain size, you do need a certain amount of organisation to enable it's smooth running, just like in any family that has house rules, a reason why we have a Constitution. That's why the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) provide for different ministries and ministers (1 Cor.12:27-31). Obviously congregations need spiritual fathers and mothers which is why Yahweh provides pastors for them (Eph.4:11). But when it's small, you don't need much in the way or organising, though whoever's house you are meeting in is de jure (legally, spiritually-speaking) the head of that house. Aside from the mandatory assemblies on sabbaths and other divine moedim (appointmens) or festivals, you can meet whenever you want to worship, pray, fellowship, and study, spontaneously or otherwise. And as we know from an earlier study we made on the Agapé Meal, the early qodeshim (saints, set-apart ones) typically met each day in one another's houses! [2] Then there's the big debate that has raged over the centuries as to what 'form' the organising should take.

The biblical pattern, which is rarely followed these days, is that we are essentially a nation or kingdom (hence the synonymous terms, 'Kingdom of Elohim (God) and 'Kingdom of Heaven' - 'heaven' is invariably used as a referent to Yahweh, as you'll see as our big Bible Course [3] gets underway), and that Kingdom is called 'Israel' [4]. We're a nation but, for now, without a national territory, which means we are spread throughout other nations in diaspora. We are, literally, 'Messianic Israel'. And in the Millennium, when Yah'shua (Jesus) rules as Regent, the 'central' cluster of kehillot or congregations will be the Nation of Israel, but with different borders and an entirely different set-up to the one in the Middle East today, to which other nations will be in subjection. Yet there will still be congregations in other nations outside the main territory of Israel, obviously, but they will all be under the central rule of the Nation of Messianic Israel and its Sovereign, Yah'shua (Jesus). It will be a 'global empire' of sorts, but not after the ungodly precepts of men, but under the benevolent Emperor, Yahweh-Elohim, with His Son reigning in the New Jerusalem as His Plenipotentiary.

But back to our friends' vision of the nameless 'church'. I said the current churches are nothing like the biblical tavnith or pattern, which is Israelite. In the biblical system, every family is it's own autonomous 'church', as it were, on the basic level, with the husband/father its cohen (priest), teacher, pastor and head, with his wife as his proactive helper in the divine mandate as a kind of pastress. What is the name of that 'church'? The name of the husband or family name. Thus my 'congregation' is my family, along with any friends who voluntarily want to identify and associate with me, which is why it is called Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon, or the 'Family Lev-Tsiyon', 'Lev-Tsiyon' being my Hebrew name. A larger congregation will consist of groups of families, with those having no families being spiritually adopted into certain families until they can start their own as husbands or become a literal part of another family as wives. (They retain their proper connections, links to, and responsibilities towards, their biological parents and siblings who may not be believers or of NCAY, of course). The family is an autonomous 'church' all of its own and should be able to function as such when needed. Thus men must learn to be men again and step up to their responsibilities as providers, rulers, teachers and protectors. There is no 'co-headship' as in the modern churches, or worse, the feminism of the liberal latter-day Jezebels, whether mild or virulent. A group of families worshipping together will form an 'association of families' or 'bigger church' - a kehillah - with a pastor-patriarch and two counsellors, plus a female pastor and her two counsellors, preferably those men's wives, leading it (following the basic apostolic pattern). 'Membership' is entirely voluntary and by common consent. What they 'name' that association, if anything, is up to them. But be careful of names like 'The Family' which is an Australian New Age doomsday cult started by the late Anne Hamilton-Byrne - you have to be sensitive to the names which have been given a bad reputation by association with cultists. Our practice is to name congregations after their location, namely, 'Cape Town New Covenant Assembly of Yahweh' or according to a district if there are many assemblies in a single city.

This is all ideal and we all know we are yet far from that ideal. Frankly, the 'church', so-called, is a mess, and before long there will be as many denominations as there are individual professing believers. That sort of chaos is not pleasing to our Heavenly Father, so somewhere along the line you have to strike a compromise between individual and corporate religion, because we're supposed to be together as a supra-family. Assemblies are 'families consisting of families'. Specifically, we are looking toward to what Scripture calls 'a Remnant' which is a way of describing that part of the great mass of people who call themselves 'Christian' or 'Messianic' who are wlling to put aside their individually-evolved distinctives and come together as one or echad family in Christ. They are the surviving faithful-ones.

To do that, you have to simplify because most people are not willing to lay down their distinctives. That's why I have been called to start this Bible Course which we will be continuing in three days' time. The goal is to reduce the New Testament to its basic elements, the 'minimum' required to be part of that bigger hoped-for Body called the 'Remnant' which is another way of describing 12-tribed Messianic Israel gathering in the nations. That sounds very 'big' and 'grand' and truthfully we are way from being anywhere near that. It can only be accomplished by us doing our parts (which is getting down to basics) and our trusting in Yahweh to do His (which is to supernaturally endow, lead and gather). But before any sort of 'gathering' can be accomplished, we have to be unreservedly agreed on these two things.

Should we drop our name? We've always said it was temporary so we are already in the mindset of being willing to do so. In the meantime, we still need identity markers, but how much that is up to Yahweh or us is debatable - after all, whilst we get to name our own children, Yahweh would obviously like an input so that naming can be prophetic. We called ourselves 'New Covenant Christians' in the beginning and that sort of evolved into 'Messianic Evangelicals' but even that is already really becoming unsatisfactory as we gradually leave behind what those labels traditionally mean. I've been toying around with 'Calcedonian Believers' but even that's not so satisfactory as this is a word few believers, let alone unbelievers. have ever heard of (Chalcedon was the scene of a council that fleshed out a doctrine of the deity of Messiah). So I don't know how this will pan out. None of this is about us anyway - you and me - but about the Saviour and the Heavenly Father. Remember the New Jerusalem Temple is 'Yahweh and the Lamb', the 'Father and the Son', who are echad or united as one, but in ways I suggest we haven't yet fully grasped.

What should our unique identifier be, that includes pointers to both the King (Yah'shua/Jesus) and His Kingdom? I'm not sure I know yet. What I do want everyone to know is that we're not out to start a 'new denomination' or 'church' but there have to be certain fundamentals in place, and the vast bulk of error removed or excised, before we will submerge our identity into something new. The safest, for now, is to be a fellowship, at different levels, of mini-family 'kingdoms' (I really don't like the word 'kingdom' either because of all its negative connotations in the modern world - language is such a pain, isn't it, especially when one is so often misinterpreted) and I know many messianics preferentially use words like 'Sovereign' and 'Reign' which are probably more accurate. My main point is that, first, individuals have to get right with Elohim (God), and then individual families. As these individual patriarchal families who have got right with Yahweh and are walking in Torah-obedience come together, so we shall witness the construction of clans and finally Israelite tribes consisting of families attracted to one another because of certain characteristics which the tribes individually represent. I believe that will happen supernaturally.

Though I once thought that the restoration of the tribes had to be genetic in some way, corresponding to indidividual tribes like Issachar, Judah and Ephraim, I am not sure that is even possible (because of the throughly mixed gene pool) or even desirable (because the core of what being Israelite is not genes but whether you are an overcomer as Jacob was). I'm not even sure that the characteristics of those original 12 sons of Israel is what it's really about either, even in their perfected, sanctified form, though I could be wrong. All I am sure about is that there will be key distinctives related to callings in the same way that there are national traits today. When Paul talks about ingrafting as part of the conversion process of gentiles, I'm not sure it was necessarily to specific genetic/biological 'tribes' but more general as a linking to what Israel actually is supposed to represent, namely, one who is Israelite by being linked into the Kingdom, which is only possible by being in Christ.

I've even read a very convincing study of James (Ya'akov) which points out that this apostle's addressing the "twelve tribes that are scattered among the nations" (Jas.1:1, HRV) may not mean what we have traditionally assumed it meant, namely, to the 10 tribes who had still maintained Israelite tribal identity and distinctiveness in specific geographical areas. But we'll deal with that when we come to the Epistle of James which is so much like the teachings of his half-brother, Yah'shua (Jesus), that I am seriously considering linking it to our study of the Four Gospels, and especially the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke) even though it wasn't written until the later 50's. It's is no accident, in my view, that the Epistle of James, which Luther hated so much because it contradicted his new Protestantism, follows immediately after Acts in the ancient Aramaic versions of the New Testament. But, like I said, more of that later in the Course.

For a name to be meaningful, it must mean something personal. Some people, unfortunately, know us by our older names either because they refuse to acknowledge that we have moved on and are no longer who were were before or because they want something to attack and so go hunting after mistakes made years ago. It's the same, if you're a convert, and someone remembers you for what you did in your old life, before you gave yourself to Christ. One who has been born-again can honestly say, 'the old man whom you knew is dead. I'm someone else now,' and that is true of 'churches' as well. "I have been crucified with Christ," Paul insisted, "and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me" (Gal.2:20, NIV). He counted the old Saul of Tarsus as dead.

Today there is a broad community of churches who call themselves 'Methodist' many of whom bear almost no resemblence whatsoever to the church the Wesley brothers inspired in the 18th century. Indeed, the Wesleys would be horrified by the liberal, flesh-appeasing monstrosity that today calls itself 'Methodist'. But what can you do? Go through expensive litigation to reclaim the name, as I know some denominations have tried, or use the money to help the poor and further the Kingdom instead - things that really matter - without getting too hung up on labels. Old time Methodists can still honour the teachings of the Wesleys - and as you know, we have much sympathy with a lot of their beliefs particularly in their evangelistic passion, their methodical study of the scriptures (from whence they got their name, though many call themselves after their founder, like the Lutherans and Calvinists) and in their anti-Calvinism - but I do think we must be prepared to let go of labels for the sake of Messiah. I knew one Methodist who told me, 'I was born a Wesleyan and I'll die a Weslean!' and he did, but I don't think he's in a place in heaven where there are only Wesleyans, do you? You've all heard the joke, I'm sure, of the man passing through the pearly gates escorted by St.Peter who comes across a large shuttered house. 'Who lives here?' asks the recently deceased man. St.Peter replies: 'Shhh, Don't make a sound. This is where the Methodists are and they think they're the only ones here!' Or you may have heard the same joke told about some other denomination, but you get the idea: our labels are meaningless in heaven and will be meaningless when we're resurrected for the Millennium too. There won't be any local Methodist Church in down-town New Jerusalem. So learning to think 'beyond labels' is healthy, just as not being self-absorbed generally is healthy. Nevetheless, that doesn't necessary mean that we should automatically discard our name whilst it still has a use. We're all unique anyway because we were all created unique.

So will we be saying goodbye to 'NCAY' and 'Messianic Evangelicals'? Yes, at some point, for sure, but not yet, I don't think. This doctrinal distillate has to be kept pure and isolated until it can naturally be used. We have no intention of diluting it in some grey pot pourri where it will get lost. Sometimes a seedling has to first be grown in a small container indoors before being planted outdoors in the bigger garden, so that it can become a strong tree with visible, distinctive fruits. The container is like the NCAY label today. What will matter in the end is not the name of the container but whether we are in Messiah and His New Creation, resurrection chayim (life), and are submitted to the Torah-Rule of His Kingdom in true tavnith (pattern), and they are are not the same, the latter flowing out of the former. That is the Phronema that we are seeking and promoting, the complete mindset, way-of-being, spirit, of the Kingdom of our Elohim (God). And that's what we'll be talking more of for the next one or so years in our Bible Study so until Sunday, Yahweh bless you and keep you. Amen.

Endnotes