The Church

I have been challenged over the years to understand what is meant when we refer to 'church', and also how it is understood by others. This is in part provoked by a sense that there is a kind of ambiguity that arises in the discussion, and I'm never quite sure whether the ambiguity is accidental or convenient*.

* the same ambiguity applies to use of the word 'ministry' - but that is another discussion.

Frequently the discussion goes as follows:

"What is the church?"

"Answer: Many people today understand the church as a building. This is not a biblical understanding of the church. The word “church” comes from the Greek word ekklesia which is defined as “an assembly” or “called-out ones.” The root meaning of “church” is not that of a building, but of people. It is ironic that when you ask people what church they attend, they usually identify a building. Romans 16:5 says “… greet the church that is in their house.” Paul refers to the church in their house—not a church building, but a body of believers."

So ... that appears to be relatively straight forward. 

Except of course, that it isn't.

Late Greek ekklēsia = 'assembly', from ekklētos = 'called', from ekkalein = 'to call out', from kalein = 'to call'. The expression was used to describe the assembly of citizens of an ancient Greek state.

Because, whilst the Greek word ekklesia is translated 'church' in our English bibles, that is actually not the Greek that 'the word church comes from', nor even the concept that the word 'church' comes from.

Stay with me here because (hopefully) this is where it gets interesting.

Whilst Google Dictionary may not be your preferred source of anything authoritative, it's entry on the meaning of 'church' is fascinating:

church 

noun: church; plural noun: churches

• a building used for public Christian worship
• a particular Christian Organisation withits own clergy, buildings, and distinctive doctrines
• the hierarchy of clergy within a particular Christian Church
• institutionalised religion as a political or social force

Origin  (the interesting bit ...)

Old English cir(i)ce, cyr(i)ce, related to Dutch kerk and German Kirche, based on medieval Greek kurikon, from Greek kuriakon ‘Lord's' (a thing belonging to the Lord), from kurios ‘master or lord’.

Alan Knox (PhD Biblical Theology) observes that "This word is used (only) twice in the New Testament:

• When you come together, it is not the Lord’s [κυριακόν – kuriakon] supper that you eat. (1 Corinthians 11:20 ESV)
• I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s [κυριακῆ – kuriake] day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet… (Revelation 1:10 ESV)"

He adds:

In both of these verses, the adjective κυριακός (kuriakos) is used to specify the owner of the “supper” or “day”, that is, the supper and day belonged to the Lord. This word belongs to a completely different semantic domain (range of meanings) than the Greek word ἐκκλησία (ekklesia).

Eventually, (i.e. post New Testament) the place where believers met together came to be called “the Lord’s house” using the term κυριακόν (kuriakon), which is the neuter version (literally, “the Lord’s thing”). This word made its way into both German (“Kirche”), Anglo Saxon (“circe”), and Middle English (“chirche”). 

It is interesting that when Luther translated the New Testament into vernacular German, he did not use the word “Kirche” to translate ἐκκλησία (ekklesia), he used the German word “Gemeinde”, which means something similar to the English word “community”. However, many Germans still refer to the “church” as the “Kirche”.

When Tyndale translated the New Testament into English in 1536, he also did not use the word “church” to translate the Greek word ἐκκλησία (ekklesia). Instead, he used the word “congregation”. 

So the reason that we associate the word 'church' with a building, or with a hierarchical institution, is because that is actually what the word means, and - I would suggest - it's (erroneous?) insertion into the New Testament was for that exact reason.

When Paul, in Romans 16:5, says “… greet the (ἐκκλησία ) that is in their house”, that is exactly what he means but he is not making any reference to 'church', but rather to the community that has been brought together, those who have been 'called out'.

the confession of faith

So, when Jesus (Matthew 16) asked His disciples: "Who do you say I am?", Peter responded with his 'confession of faith' that Jesus was 'the Christ, the Son of the Living God'. Jesus' response was that this was not something revealed to Peter by human intellect, but by divine revelation and that it was upon this confession that he would build His 'ekklesia'.

Many will be familiar with the fact that the Roman Catholic Church ascribes its authority to the fact that it was 'founded' by the Apostle Peter, and that Jesus had clearly stated, in that passage, that the true church would be built upon the authority vested in Peter, i.e. that he was the rock on whom the church would be built.

Interestingly, Tyndale was arrested as a heretic for undermining the authority of the Roman Church, convicted, strangled to death, and then burned at the stake.

(Let that be a lesson to anyone who questions the 'official' interpretation to beware of trying to match a desire for the truth against vested self-interest. I recall someone saying something about 'serving two masters')

 

who cares? 

Why is this even an issue? 

I suspect that the Lord probably cares if His words are being distorted to serve a different purpose. And whilst it shouldn't surprise us if that is the case, surely we have an obligation to understand 'the truth that sets us free'.

It seems that there is a (possibly deliberate - but, if not, certainly convenient) confusion between whether Jesus was talking of those who were 'called out' (of the world, and into relationship with Him) to assemble as equals before Him (the democratic assembly of citizens), or to a hierarchical religious institution that would interpret the will of God to its adherents.

While that ambiguity persists there is uncertainty about the nature and role of leadership, and even the nature of relationships between Christians - are some subordinate to others? 

For people in positions of 'authority' in 'the church', the ambiguity is an effective means of proliferating that model whilst maintaining plausible deniability.

Without a sound biblical understanding of how Jesus sees His 'congregation', we can have little understanding of how to manage those who would seek to assert themselves over others, in the guise of 'authority'. It was the leaders of 'God's People' who sought the death of Christ, who sought to undermine and revile His reputation because they felt threatened by His message.

There will always be those that seek to exalt themselves and have authority over others. There will always be those who seek the most important seats at banquets, who seek the recognition of titles and special favour .

We make a grave error if we think that kind of behaviour is limited to first century Judaism. Jesus was very clear in His commands given in Matthew 23 that we were not to give or receive titles, because we are all brothers - assembled as equals before Him. And whilst some may be entrusted with 'oversight', that is not in the context of any subordination of others.

Jesus was very clear that we were not to succumb to that kind of self-serving. The example of Christ is to serve: both to serve God and to serve others.
.

the greatest among you will be the servant of all