The English word “church” is translated from the Greek, ekklesia which literally means “the called out ones” (ek – out and klesis – calling) and was used to describe an assembly or a lawful assembly. Applied spiritually, ekklesia is “the called out of” - that is, the saved who are called out of the word (John. 17).
• “Church” (ekklesia) is used to denote all those who are in Christ without any particular geographic designation (Matt 16:18), as well as groups of followers in a particular geographic area (1 Cor.1:2).
• “Church” used universally (all the saved) is always used in the singular.
• “Churches,” plural, refers to a number of local churches, the groups of called out ones in various areas. For example when Paul wrote, “... the churches of Christ salute you” (Rom. 16:16).
• “Church” is applied to the gathering or assembly of God’s people (1 Cor 14:19).
• “Church” denotes those followers who have connected together and have the full development as far as organization is concerned (Acts 14:23).
• The local church, when fully organized has elders and deacons (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-13).
I’ve been noticing people’s use of the word “church” recently. I’m aware that although the definition of a word determines its usage in language, the reverse can also be true: the contextual usage of a word can actually influence and change its meaning.
Annette (my wife) was driving with Kate (8) and Thomas (4) in the back seat of the car recently. Thomas had his teddy (Fred) and Fred was eating everything they drove past. “Fred is eating the tree,” “Fred is eating the car,” “Fred is eating the church” to which Kate spoke up and said, “That’s not the church, the church is people, not a building.”
“Church” is used 115 times in the Greek New Testament, however, it never refers to the building in which the church meets. Yet, our use of the word “church” can lead us to this conclusion. I hear people saying things like, “we’re going to church,” “we’re having a working bee at the church,” “the board meeting will be at the church.” While I understand that what most people mean is “the building where the church meets,” it subtly draws us away from the true meaning of the church as the people of God, (followers of Jesus) gathering to encourage and serve each other and then going out to share and demonstrate the Gospel.
I also hear people saying, “after church let’s go out to lunch” or “I like some quiet reflection time before church starts” this use of “church” focuses on the gathering of people or “the service.” Although the gathering of God’s people is vital, it is only one aspect of being the church and in my view is secondary to the going purpose. We gather to encourage each other, serve each other, learn from each other, recommit ourselves to each other, be accountable to each other, worship God together and pray for each other so that each person can be better equipped to live out their faith as they go out to their various homes, workplaces, schools and communities.
I asked my class at Kingsley College last year the following question: If there are two groups of 20 people and one is a church and one is not, what makes the church a church?
We summarised the list to the following: The church is
• Committed to following Jesus Christ in faith and action
• Committed to serving each other and building each other up using their gifts
• Committed to being accountable to each other and to grow in love for God and others
• Committed to gathering regularly and sharing in worship and relationship
• Committed to share in mission together and be witnesses of the Gospel message in all areas of their lives.
Michael Frost asks a similar question in his book Exiles . He asks “when is a bunch actually a church?” He proposes the following four requirements: Trinitarian Theology, Covenantal Expression, Catholic Orientation, and Missional Intent.
In the Church of England report, Mission Shaped Church, they summarise the five values of the church as: 1) focused on God the trinity, 2) incarnational, 3) transformational, 4) disciple making and 5) relational .
Our usage of the word “church” ought to be as a verb. That is we do church and be the church, rather than as a noun, we go to church (meeting) or we clean the church (building).
My observation is that churches can easily become preoccupied with the noun definitions of church. Time and energy is consumed on buildings (or raising money for buildings) or on the gathering (service) to the point that no time or energy is left for the primary purpose of the church which is living missionally in our communities with the support and accountability of the church.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Great thoughts Peter.
We'd love to have you here at Hope on the 3rd, but preaching's not necessary. Presence is enough!
You linguistic fundamentalist you.
I was thinking about the word "increadible" this morning and how it's changed too. If I read it right, its original intent was that something was so extraordinary that it was "in-creadible" or "not creadible" enough to use. But over time it's changed to mean "astounding" or "extraordinary" in a positive sense.
So it is with church. Only backwards.
But I also think that while church is a verb, it's ALSO used as a noun. But not a fixed noun; a flexible noun, a dynamic noun, a noun that is ever changing, growing, moving. So it's a noun that verbs? Maybe we just don't have the lingual skills do use the word "church" properly ...
I love the story about your car trip...in fact I love it so much, I'm going to "borrow" it to use at church tonight...
This isn't my personal view, but I thought you'd be a good person to put this question to. The emerging church movement compromises the Gospel because of the influence of postmodernism. Is this a valid criticism? Discuss.
Wow Ross what a loaded questions. First I think it depends on one's definition of "emerging church movement" - what is that exactly. I don't think of myself or Mimos as "emerging church" we're just a group of Christians seeking to express our collective faith in God authentically. So I don't think the label "emerging" actually carries any definitive meaning. There are some authors who some would link to a supposed "emerging church movement" who may espouse some less than orthodox views but I don't believe they represent anyone beyond themselves. To say that the gospel is compromised because of the influence of postmodernism - I think this could be the case in any church. I actually think everyone is influenced by postmodern thinking but the question is to what degree. And finally, what is "the gospel?" One's definition of "the gospel" will impact the judgement on whether one model of church weakens or strengthens the living out of the gospel message against another.
So a summary response is - you can't label any group as "emerging church" unless they choose to be labelled that themselves and many who are seeking more authentic forms of Christian community would probably declare that they are expressing the gospel more authentically than they were in previous churches.
Post a Comment