Word study on ekklesia ("church") — Monday with Mounce 15

A few years ago I heard a man announce that we have worked through the worship wars and that the next war would be in the area of ecclesiology, our doctrine of the church. As I was personally enmeshed in worship wars, I wondered why he thought we had passed through the hymn vs. chorus, organ vs. drum debate. I don’t think that debate has been settled, at least for churches committed to cross-generational ministries.

But his comment about ecclesiology intrigued me. What exactly is the church? How do you define it? What is the difference between a Bible study, a para-church organization, a church, and the church.

I remember the first time I was involved in the discussion as to whether seminary students in chapel could take communion. The debate was much more intense than I expected. "Absolutely not," one set of professors decreed. We are not the church, and communion can only be served in the church. I was flabbergasted. Here were seminary professors asserting something without biblical warrant (my opinion).

hen asked what the church is, they responded with the traditional reformed answer. The church is where the gospel is taught rightly, the sacraments served properly, and church discipline exercise. Of course, this definition has virtually nothing to do with the biblical text and more to do with the reformers attempt to distinguish themselves from the Roman Catholic church.

So I went to my favorite word study book, Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary (i.e., shameless plug), and am reminded that etymologically (and its etymology is still valid) the ekklesia is the community of believers who have been "called out" of the world to belong to King Jesus. It is never identified with a building but always with the people. The church may meet in a building, but it is not the building, the home; the church is the people (e.g., Phlm 2; Col 4:15). The true church is the visible expression of the expanding Kingdom of God.

I just finished reading Snyder’s book, The Community of the King (review to come shortly on SupportMinistry.com). Overall I think it is an excellent book. His central thesis is that the church is not an institution but a community of true followers of Jesus Christ. He goes to great pains to distinguish the church from any form of hierarchy or structure or institutionalism. I think he goes too far (e.g., there is some structure provided by elders and deacons; these are offices and not just gifts or calling), but the basic thesis is right. There is only one church, the church universal, and there are local expressions of the church in various places at various times. The church is never to be equated with buildings or institutions or denominations.

So what prompted this blog? A good friend has been deeply wounded by the traditional church. (By "traditional" I mean the brick and mortar monstrosity that claims to be the "church" but is often nothing more than a spiritual shopping mall.) Rejection. Gossip (the native tongue of the traditional church). Persecution that extended to her entire family. It has taken almost two years to work through.

Last semester she enrolled in a well-known Christian college. She is not willing to attend any of the local spiritual shopping malls at this time, and this with her parents’ approval. She is healing, and doesn’t need to be exposed to more of that foolishness right now. But one of the (shall we say) "authorities" of this college is insisting that she "go to church." "This will help you work through your pain."

What an absolutely horrible thing to say (at least in this girl’s situation). What a horrible ecclesiology. Yes, she needs the body of Christ. Yes, she needs Christian companionship. Yes, she needs the comfort of the true church. But this "authority’s" ecclesiology is as wrong as wrong can be. What happens Sunday morning is not necessarily the church and should never be equated with the church. The church is the community of believers who meet together, regularly and irregularly, to love one another, care for one another, carry one another’s burdens, stir up one another to love and good works, confess their sins to one another. When was the last time any of this happened in a large room with well-dressed people and the organ or drums blaring? If an institution is not carrying out the requirements Scripture places on the church, is it the church?

Don’t get me wrong. I understand that we need one another. That we are to gather together on a regular basis (which I believe makes us a local expression of the true church). I’ve given many years of my life to encouraging others within the context of the traditional church.

But we must never forget that what happens Sunday morning is not necessarily the church.

The church is the community of the king that gathers together on a regular basis to preach the gospel and fulfill the one anothers in Scripture. That community of "called out ones" is part of the answer to our loneliness and pain. But spiritual shopping malls rarely do anything more than confuse the people they supposedly serve.

William D. [Bill] Mounce posts every Monday about the Greek language, exegesis, and related topics at Koinonia. He is the author of numerous books, including the bestselling Basics of Biblical Greek, and general editor for Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of the Old and New Testament Words. He served as the New Testament chair of the English Standard Version Bible translation. Visit www.billmounce.com for more info or read his blog (co-authored with scholar and his father Bob Mounce) at www.supportministry.com.

Comments

[pwc]

that is very true. but when one refuses to go to church on sundays, it does not mean automatically that that one has a community of called-out believers. To say that the answer "go to church on sundays" is not necessarily right does not itself give an answer; it just shows that the answer isn't always right. but it's important to actually give an alternative answer in order to make things better. In your opinion, what would a better answer than "going to church?"

[Bruce McKanna]

If we did a word study on ekklesia and its uses, wouldn't we find that, more often than not, it refers to particular local body of believers, not the "universal" church or those that happened to meet on a particular day?

You acknowledged the need for the biblical offices of elder and deacon, and this would seem to imply that a church, properly constituted, would involve a particular group of believers under their shepherding and care. This seems to conflict with your assertion of church as any gathering of believers.

The emphasis on the concept of community versus institution is good, but can sometimes be misleading. How can someone say they are truly part of a community without the recognition of that community as actually being a member, rather than just a person who is an interested party? Just showing up doesn't make you part of a church.

Therein lies the irony. You seem to want to ignore institutional elements such as membership and discipline, and instead, to emphasize the gathering. By so doing, you make the event of church more significant than the covenant relationship of community that are recognized through profession of faith and mutual commitment.

I'm glad to join you in the fight against institutionalism in churches, but we cannot leave structure and organization for an expression of community that is not defined by public profession of faith in Christ, limited by faithfulness to Christ, and shepherded by duly appointed leaders.

[Keith]

I notice that the sacraments are absent from all of Mounce's definitions of "church." I agree with him that the next battles will be ecclesiological, but it seems to me that we are doomed to poor ecclesiology if we don't recognize the importance of not just preaching and koinonia and mission, but also the action of God through the sacraments. Certainly, if someone has been wounded by a "spiritual shopping mall," she should not attend another one for her healing. But the Eucharist would certainly be healing . . . and no one else is offering it but the Church.

(Not that I think the Eucharist is magic, but I do believe that God acts through the sacraments in ways that we cannot fathom.)

[Ounbbl]

In his Jewish New Testament, David Stein renders ekklesia as 'Messianic community'. I like it very much. In plural forms, it is 'congregations', but in Mt 16:18, it is simply '(will build) my Community'. [I prefer 'my living Community' in this text.]

Do we have to include sacraments in its definition, which itself is not found in the Bible? A definition should cover only the core concept to serve its purpose (being all encompassing), otherwise it is just another encyclopedic descriptive definition. (Actually I don't have clear a definition on 'sacrament' itself. I have often encountered 'sacrament' and 'sacramental' in writings by the Catholic authors.)

This is just one example of the problem of definition. One can define words in many different ways. Should we define it as a biblical word or as a religious term? From Catholic or Protestant POV? etc.

Is Ekklesia being of those 'being called out' an example of etymological fallacy? It might be rather an example of folk etymology or word play.

[Tom E. Snyder]

Many contemporary (as opposed to traditional) churches have small groups that fulfill many of the objectives that you list that are missing in the Sunday morning assembly. These usually meet weekly in homes fulfilling the second half of the Acts 2 community.

[Ruth Olson]

So, what is a trained organist supposed to do? This instrument takes physical coordination, training in tone-shading to emphasize mood and thought of well known-words. It was never meant to put emphasis on the person playing it so that attention would be drawn upward instead of a person. People who do not understand the skill required to sufficiently serve the Lord and point the listener upward ahead of the pastors sermon and keep people's mind going toward the pastor's main point each week. A honed musician will know appropriateness of word and thought whereas the drummer only knows how to pound. His inexperience shows the interest in his ability to everyone. The danger with this is ego gets in the way. An organist can do the same thing and use the instrument almost like a weapon. God is not in this type of thing. I've seen music programs collapse after awhile due to the ego of a drummer or guitarist as it is all about them. But what is a seasoned and good organist supposed to do....die along with the instrument?

[Alan Biggers]

I agree with most of what you have written but I do believe that in the process of directing people to a more true understanding of the church we have to be careful not to lead them into a overly critical perspective of those who gather in the name of Christ.
in this article you stated:
"What happens Sunday morning is not necessarily the church and should never be equated with the church. The church is the community of believers who meet together, regularly and irregularly, to love one another, care for one another, carry one another’s burdens, stir up one another to love and good works, confess their sins to one another."

i believe that, though this may be true in many cases, this statement has is very contradictory. While Sunday meetings do not define "Church" in it's entirety, it is still an integral part of my connection to Christ's Church. It is a place where those in attendance can be "stirred up to love and good works" and a place where we connect with others to "confess our sins," Which is part of your definition of what the "true church" is. I like much of what is said here, but I do think we need to be careful. It is important to make sure what we say is pointing people towards positive change and not unintentionally exaggerating distrust within the Church.