Commitment to Biblical Ecclesiology 5.28.2026

    Things have been hectic the last couple of weeks, consequently I am behind on my writing. I did want to bring Mays theme to a close however before engaging in my plan for June. My theme in May has been A commitment to Biblical Authority. A central element of this thesis is that claiming something is “Biblical” means far more than just saying “The Bible says!”, quoting a text, or a vague claim to being Christian. 

    A commitment to Scripture as the Word of God requires a long-term commitment to accurate and clear preaching. A commitment to Scripture also requires submission to Biblical patterns of leadership. Last of all, briefly today I want to discuss how Biblical authority requires a commitment to Biblical Ecclesiology. Simply put we need to understand what the Bible says about the Church; Its founding, nature, place, and purpose. 

I mentioned in the lede that I am trying to play catch up today, suffice it to say the beginning of Biblical Ecclesiology as well as a sufficient summation is found in the second line of Matthew 16.18:

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18 ESV)

 Those words clearly articulate Jesus’ vision. 

1. These words signal intent. The Church was the plan from the beginning.  

2. These words signal possession. It is His Church. 

3. These words signal purpose. 

     It is possible to make this conversation unnecessarily complicated. A commitment to a Biblical understanding d of the Church means that we acknowledge the lordship of Jesus over His Church. His intent becomes ours. We recognize His guidance, provision, and direction over the Church as His body, bride, flock, building, temple. And it means that we align ourselves with His purposes for the Church. 

    This is not rocket science. The single most important element (this is likewise true for the other commitments we have highlighted during this discussion) is humility. The spirit of the age holds humility in contempt and redefines the Church as simply another locus of human drama and power. 

    The Church is His. It belongs to Jesus. It is not subordinate to, embedded within, or reflective of any human, national, cultural, or social structure. Any claim that it is defined by those human relationships simply shows that the claimant is not committed to Biblical authority and betrays enormous ignorance of what the Bible actually teaches. In which case, conversation ends because those who imprison the Church within human structures demonstrate where their loyalty lies.