The Kingdom and the Church

In the conclusion of his book The Kingdom of God, George Beasley-Murray makes a case that the kingdom and the church are not the same entities; they cannot be used interchangeably, suggesting that members of one are not automatically members of the other. However, he seems to be making his case by defining the church as an organization, an institution. (He doesn't actually offer an explicit definition of church, but his usage suggests this definition.) He does provide a short definition of the kingdom of God, though, as the reign or rule of God.

Given these definitions, I can agree that the organization or institution known as the church should not be blithely equated with the kingdom. However, I find it surprising that Beasley-Murray, who has so consistently throughout his book depended on biblical usage to determine definitions (especially of the kingdom), to then use a definition of the church that holds no resonance with the New Testament. NT usage of ekklesia refers to the gathering of those who believe, not to an institution of attendees.

The church is made up of those who believe and seek to obey God, who have been brought into "the kingdom of the Son he loves" (Col. 1.13). So the church is part of God's kingdom. And by Jesus' definition, those who believe his words, love him, and obey his commands belong to his family, the church (John 15, Mark 16, Luke 8). So these, then, belong to the kingdom. The members of the one really are automatically members of the other, because obedience is the proof of membership for both. Yes, I can concede that the kingdom transcends the church because I would include God's supernatural working as key to kingdom momentum, but I do wish Beasley-Murray's discussion was more detailed. As it is, I just can't buy it.