Print
That Confusing Thing We Call Ourselves
The word that we generally use to describe a gathering of Christians comes from kuriakē oikia—in Greek, “house of the Lord.” The first word of the phrase, kuriakē, through a series of linguistic evolutions whose intermediate you can spot in the Scottish “kirk”, eventually became the English “church”.
It’s not the term the Bible uses for the church: the New Testament term is ekklēsia, a called assembly. This word doesn’t have a cognate in English but it is the root word in the romance languages—Iglesia in Spanish, église in French, chiesa in Italian.
It isn’t the word’s origins that should concern us but the confusing ways we use it. In ordinary conversation “church” can mean:
1. A congregation: “Our church has 225 members.”
2. A worship service: “I couldn’t stay awake in church today.”
3. A building in which we hold religious services: “We’re painting and recarpeting the church.”
4. The church universal: “The church is growing in China among many denominations.”
5. A Christian denomination: “I’m a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.”
Ekklēsia, the New Testament word for church, is closest to the first meaning—a local assembly. Peter may be drawing on the etymology of ekklēsia—'ek' meaning 'out' and 'kaleo' meaning to 'call’—when he says we’re a group specially called into the light by God (1 Peter 2:9). But in fact it’s not, even in scripture, a specifically religious word: when the Ephesian silversmiths got angry with Paul for saying that their shrines to Artemis were worthless, they talk about calling an ekklēsia (Acts 19:32,39)—a town meeting.
That Paul (who uses ekklēsia most often) adopted a fairly common word of the polis for Christian gatherings might tell us something about the character of a church. First, it’s local. It’s possible to call out for a meeting people from all over the world, but it’s not what we do every week. The people in the kinds of congregations Paul speaks about know one another—confirmed by Paul’s frequent admonitions for church member to care personally for one another (e.g., Galatians 6:2).
Second, it’s a gathering, not a privileged rite. We should see in it some of the egalitarian character of town meetings, where anyone can, within reason, participate. Specifically, it would seem to confute the Roman Catholic view of church as an event whose value derives from holy spaces, vessels, bread and wine, works of art, and men, kept separate from mostly passive congregants. Depending on how democratic you want to be, it may even call into question the necessity of a professional clergy: remember Jesus’ approval of any two or three gathered in his name (Matthew 18:20), ordained or not.
It’s easy to see how the second and third meanings grew out of the first. If the church is an assembly for the purpose of worship, then we’re doing church when we assemble. And the place we assemble is, of course, our building—the kuriakē oikia.
This latter should at least be examined, for there’s no indication of church buildings in the New Testament. Christians appeared to worship in houses (1 Corinthians 16:19) or outdoors (Acts 16:14). A purpose-built religious building is characteristic of what came before—temples and synagogues—and what came after—the colossal show-off structures of the Roman church—but not of the apostolic Christian church.
Is there any significance to our English word “church” deriving from kuriakē oikia, the house of God, when the apostles were careful to dismiss the notion that God has a dwelling (Acts 7:48)? Probably not, though buildings have become excessively important to congregations, such that some congregations put more of their investment in bricks than in people. I enjoy beautiful church buildings, but I also think it’s a good sign that there’s a growing house church movement in our denomination and elsewhere that is trying to establish congregations without purpose-built buildings.
The New Testament appears to acknowledge a sort of universal church or invisible church, a church that isn’t, for want of a better word, organized. But that’s not the ekklēsia. The only ekklēsia in the New Testament is a local gathering of believers. Paul’s metaphor for all Christians in the world is the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27), or the bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:22-33) and the church at this level is Christ’s domain. What we are to do with that—beyond realizing that we aren’t the only Christians, should we think we are—isn’t clear, except that I don’t see in these metaphors any expectation that everyone be brought under one centralized church government in Rome or Silver Spring.
The last use of “church” is perhaps the least accurate, mostly because the concept of a Christian denomination can only be traced back to the Protestant Reformation. There were parties in the early church (Paul didn’t like them—1 Corinthians 1:12), but nothing corresponding to modern denominations, groups that keep a membership roster and exclude others from their communion (which Ephesians 4:5 seems to discourage altogether). For the next 15 centuries the main body of Christianity was the bloated, often corrupt Christian church with its headquarters in Rome. Furthermore the kind of organization we associate with denominationalism today—charters, by-laws, conferences—really came into its own in the American democracy. Today we still use the language of American democracy in running our denomination. Why, for example, are our leaders presidents instead of the Biblical episkopos?
It’s interesting to me that most Protestant groups organized themselves in similar ways to the church they left. Still, we Adventists have outdone the rest of the Protestant world in centralization and structure, probably because of something we share with our traditional archenemy the Roman Catholic church: a need for a high level of organizational control.
As for the word “church,” for each of the five uses I gave above, there’s a more accurate word. The local church group should properly be the congregation. The service it holds is worship. The church building may have the best historical claim on the English word “church,” but “sanctuary” would be less confusing. The Body of Christ can be the church universal (we Adventists shun small-c “catholic”, even though it means the same thing) or simply Christianity.
It seems to me denominations should be most cautious about referring to themselves as “church”, for a denomination is more of a political entity than a spiritual one. Adopting the word for our group might then suggest that no Christian group other than ours is legitimate in God’s eyes, or that we recognize no one as part of the body of Christ except us—an idea for which it would be nearly impossible to make a Biblical case.
User login
Recent
- victor Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- WC Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- victor Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Rescued LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
- Defender of THE Faith Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Roger S The Dark Fantasy World of Walter Veith
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- George Tichy Pacific Union Conference Calls Special Constituency Meeting to Authorize Equality in Ordination
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
Newsletter
Organizations
Sat, 09/08/2012
|
San Diego Adventist Forum
Sigve Tonstad, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Religion, Loma Linda
University
Current Issue
Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Loren,
A provocative article, illustrating the many ways in which we use the term "church" and when and how we choose to use it: the entire SDA organization; the local congregation or its building, and its doctrines and rules. Membership requirements are far more specific than most any other denomination where one is welcomed by a confession that Jesus Christ is Lord, just as was the first baptized individuals.
Like all institutions, it has become burdened with all sorts of constraints, some good and others having no importance other than to employ many.
The one question, seldom voiced, but should be, is "Why join a church? What are the benefits and limitations?" Before joining any voluntary organization those are the questions that should be asked and decided by each individual. Then, and only then can the right decision be made. When folks claim to be second, third, or fourth generation SDA the question always comes to mind: Was it a freely chosen decision, or was it merely inherited by birth, like a family name from which one can never be disowned or divorced? Some have looked and found that it no longer was a benefit; others have decided it has many benefits they enjoy. Without considering these questions, it becomes merely a default position, a position without much thinking involved.
Elaine
Interesting word study, leading to some great insights. Thank-you.
"The church building may have the best historical claim on the English word “church,” but “sanctuary” would be less confusing."
Ah! Yes! Now you're talking heretic! ; ) So much to take in when we actually do a study on the sanctuary being the church besides a building in heaven!
Thanks for a thought provoking article!
'Ownership' may be the pillar of Western society, but it is the root cause of the divisions that abuse concepts of church.
Loren Seibold, I always enjoy your articles, thank you! Since the ordinary member like me has no voice in most decisions on higher levels, I try not to confuse my faith, my hope with my "church"..
Why did the ancients build temples? Did God ever say to any of them "Build Me a Temple"?
Loren's I enjoy beautiful church buildings is fine as a throw-away line, but what about admiration for the many other non-church buildings? Some of them even rate in their beauty, some of them are architectural marvels, a few compete for 'tallest ever'.
The most disposable, the most inconsequential element in a notion of church is the actual building, but it has become, in the West, a significance that's way beyond its' utility in promoting the goodness of God.
"Did God ever say to any of them "Build Me a Temple"?
"Yahweh spoke to Moses and said, 'Tell the sons of Israel to set asided a contribution for me....Build me a sanctuary so that I may dewell among them." God gave the exact specifications. It was filled with gold, precious stones, elaborate embroideries and valuable handiwork.
Elaine
Thanks Loren,
Interesting word study on ekklēsia and its meaning for the SDA church. I would have to disagree with your statement that "The only ekklēsia in the New Testament is a local gathering of believers." If we look at Matthew 16:18, Acts 9:31, Gal. 1:13, Eph. 5:25, among others, a reading that implies only a local congregation doesn't quite make sense. While I would agree that the majority of the uses of ekklēsia found in the New Testament are referring to local gatherings of believers, there are also times when it can refer to the catholic "body of Christ." So in your list, ekklēsia would be either #1 or #4 depending on context.
Jon
Thanks for that, Jon. You're right: that statement was too sweeping a generalization. (Earlier I said that it was closest to that meaning, which was more accurate.) Still, not sure that it is entirely wrong, either: with the exception of the first, which undoubtedly does sound like the church catholic, the others could be referring to local assemblies. But I should have said it is generally the ekklēsia, not only.
Loren
It is sad that our SDA indoctrination has so prejudiced us that even use of the word "catholic" is to be avoided.
John Walton's wonderful book, 'The Lost World of Genesis One,' points out that ancient cultures believed the Temple was God's 'house' and gods only 'rested' in their temples. So when God rested on the seventh-day He was declaring His creation as His Temple, His 'crash pad,' His residence, His digs, His castle, His house. I find that perspective a refreshing, eye-opening point. Our world, our culture, our society, broken as it is, is God's dwelling place. Think Incarnation. When God incarnated into Jesus He was merely coming home, returning to the place He made; in a new and provocative way, He was demonstrating Immanuel, 'God with us.' The Incarnation: creation completed. His creation wasn't completed until He could walk the in the garden as one of us. It's no wonder we will ponder how Transcendence became Immanence for eternity. Such love!
Yes, I understand our belief in the Sabbath and it's rest, and I love its holiday of respite in a tumultuous world, but Walton's book gives me another way of looking at God and His house, the Temple; just as Paul stretched the definition of the Temple when he pointed out our hearts are His hang out. 1Cor. 6:19 - 20. Wow, not only does he dwell in my heart, He's also available at any location I might find myself, even if 'I make my bed in hell.' (Psalms 139:8). Therefore I can worship in God's residence no matter what I am doing and no matter where I'm at, for I see His fingerprints and footprints all over my broken world, His creation still.
You've touched on something that has been bothering me for a long time: the idea that we Adventists are uniquely God's chosen people in the last days. While I was thoroughly indoctrinated in this idea for the larger share of my life, I have come to see it as a kind of hubris, a way to think of ourselves as better than other Christians. How can we ever fulfill Jesus' prayer that His followers should all be one, as He and the Father were one, when we have this attitude?
Dear Carol,
I don't think there's anything wrong with having something important to share - an end time message - as long as it doesn't go to our heads and as long as we realize that true followers of Christ in any denomination (even Roman Catholics) are just as much God's people as we are. I believe Seventh-day Adventists do have some very beautiful truths that are fully biblical and that most other Christians have overlooked. If we share this message humbly, with the aim of helping our brothers and sisters in Christ grow spiritually, while at the same time, being open to learning from them, I can see only blessing coming from our endtime message. But if we share that message with a haughty spirit - thinking that we have "all" the truth and are the only true Christians on earth - the Advent message becomes a curse. It's as simple as that!
Dear Loren,
I have a question about the etymology of the English word "church." Clearly, it is closely related to the Scottish English "kirk" and the German "Kirche." But why did the Romance languages transliterate the Greek "ekklēsia," while the West Germanic languages transliterated and shortened the Greek "kuriakē oikia?" It sounds like the French, Spanish, and Italians are more focused on the congregated people - the New Testament sense - while the English and the Germans are more focused on the building - which is totally foreign to the New Testament.
Do you have any thoughts on this development?
Bob, I had the same thought when I was doing the word study! But that may be expecting too much information from the word roots. One possible explanation is simply that the latinate languages are a lot closer to the Greek, and it made sense to draw the word directly from the text.
If your church closed down today, would your neighbours and community know and would any of them care? How relevant are many of our churches to anyone beyond the holy huddles?
Pipik, your question concerning the church's relevance speaks to the definition of its mission. And while there's little merit in demanding that the church remain frozen in the shape and identity of its infancy, a lot can be learned in practical terms from those beginnings as to what exactly that mission is. How it served those in its communion as well as in the wider community. Indeed there was a lot more to the great commission than just preaching, teaching and baptizing. The great commission was to be carried out in the same expressions of love that characterized the Savior's earthly ministry. The parable of the sheep and the goats shows the criteria on which those who claim to have participated in carrying out that mission will in the end be judged.
Don Tucie
Could it be that faith simply ought not to be rational?
dear don,
an irrational faith is an affront to God. He gave us a mind and not to use it is a lack of faith. the problem with much of church is an irrational, unthinking approach to God and what we call 'truth.' faith does not mean mindless. but then maybe i don't understand what you mean by being 'rational.'
greg
Maybe someone can explain "rational faith" if it is not an oxymoron.
Elaine
Hi, Bob - I agree with you, but I'm afraid I have seen too many examples of the opposite of humility. We have indeed been blessed by some wonderful biblical truths, but I have also been blessed by insights from godly Christians from other denominations.
faith does not mean we can't question, investigate, or come to different conclusions than those truths to which which we have been spoon-fed. faith in God means being free to think and to allow others the same freedom to come to their own conclusions. faith in God means He can work in the framework of my mind which He created. i believe that. but it also means believing God is loving, kind, tender, sensitive to my uniqueness and ever present, regardless of life's broken results. it believes the sun rises in the morning after a night of hell. (Ps. 30:5). if that is an oxymoron, my faith doesn't think so. obviously you are free to differ.
but if rational faith is an oxymoron the alternative is nuts. irrational faith is mindless. just my puny opinion.
I think "sanctuary" is an unwise word to use for the church building. It has an Old Testament ring that undermines the clear New Testament teaching that the believers (individually and corporately) are the "temple of the Holy Spirit".
Dear Carol,
I agree completely. There is still too much denominational pride and triumphalism among Seventh-day Adventists. I have also been blessed by good insights from non-SDA Christians. One of my very good friends is a former Seventh-day Adventist pastor who now worships on Sunday in a non-denominational church. Although we sincerely differ on the Sabbath, I count him as a dear friend and yes - still a true brother in Christ, and I have learned much from him.
Let me add a further thought. Do we want a better church that shares its message in a humble, loving way? Well, we are the church, so the change must start with you and me!
How about using Quaker parlance and substitute the word “church” for “meeting house” and “congregation” for “friends?”
If a "church" is just a building or a group of people, why is it that it is wrong for a musician to walk from the piano side of the church across the front the church to get to the organ side? Instead the musician has to either walk behind the platform or go out of the church building and enter through the other side to avoid crossing in front of the "pulpit". What is so sacred about it? Leftover from Catholicism?
I suspect we "simple" people are not confused. If anything is rudimentary the alleged intellectuals can make it seem difficult and complicated.
The way to Eternal Life is not at all difficult; otherwise how could poor uneducated, illiterate souls ever hope to see the Kingdom of Heaven.
Friend...
This article is not about complicating the way to eternal life. It's addressing the distortions surrounding the concept of church that have sprung up over time. And, such distorted concepts have led to distorted praxis that affects the lives of people. IOW, this piece and subsequent comments are seeking to explore truth and error and their lived out consequences...something that SDAism has no problem with when it shows up the false ideas of others, but not so cool with when it may show up our own.
Thanks...
Frank
IMC:
I've not heard this problem you speak of, of crossing over in front of the pulpit. Most musicians I know don't do it simply because they don't want to be on display and disrupt what is happening on the platform, but this is the first I've heard of a theological objection to it! Interesting, thanks. In the Catholic church, if you cross the nave you have to bow or genuflect—if I remember correctly, because Jesus is present there in the form of the reserved sacrament.
I do think there are remnants of sacramental/ritual worship theology that cling to us. For example, the burning of the leftover communion wafers. We say they're just symbolic, but we treat them as though they're holy. I've also heard some interesting things through the years about treating Bibles with respect, like never stacking another book on top of one, or some sort of ritual for burning a tattered Bible.
Perhaps these things are not a bow to ritual worship as much as just acknowledging that we make associations with sacred places and items, which affect our spiritual sensibilities about them.
LGS
Kent Kingston:
Good point about the word "sanctuary". I just grabbed at a word that people use already, that isn't "church" with its confusing uses. "Church building" would work, I suppose. But I'm open to other ideas. Andrew's idea of "meeting house" might work, since technically that's all our churches should be—not sacred spaces in the Catholic sense.
LGS
I've heard "worship center."
Thanks...
Frank
I didn't know we burned the wafers. I though I was told we soak them in water and then bury them. I'll consult my head deaconess and get my facts straight.
Don Tucie
Who says faith has to be rational?
When one speaks of "associations with sacred places and items," it brings to mind the question the woman from Samaria asked Jesus: "Should we worship in this mountain, or in Jerusalem?"
His answer rings down through the centuries: "The hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem....But the hour will come--in fact it is here already--when true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth: that is the kind of worshipper the Father wants. God is spirit, and those who worship must worship in spirit and truth."
This seems to be saying that time, place, or objects are no longer to be symbols of worship as had been the practice since the first sanctuary will built per God's instructions that he may dwell among them. No longer is God associated with a time or place, but it is His spirit in our hearts that is the true worship.
Elaine
A substantial portion of the New Testament are Paul's letters to the churches. Generally churches he planted and held a special place in his Heart. Peter also wrote several epistles late in his ministry. it is remarkable how pauline he writes. A far cry from his early ministry. His transition from Hebrew thought to Christian thought was long and hard.
It is unfortunae that the Seventh-day Adventist Church with few exception has followed the early Peter in their formation of doctrine and life style. rather than Paul. Obviously not Pauline in origin but Pauline in principle, the Aposles Creed is a far better anchor for the believer than any complled statement of Beliefs since. All others insist on additions, modification, insertions, and exceptions. None of which pertain to the fundamental importance and significance of the Christ Event.
To pledge allegiance to the principles of the Apostles Creed requires a faith, a gratitude, and a generosity that is Apastolic: that vies with the behavior of the Church in Jerusalem following Pentecost.
Saving Truth, Truth worthy of Worship, Truth worthy of proclaiming, Truth worthy of living for, Truth for all ages is followed in these simple words.
All manknd can find fellowship within its encompassing prose. It hold captive a heaven host as recorded in Revelation 4,5. Why not a company of believers?
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
The Maker of heaven and earth,
And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontious Pilate
was crucified, dead, and buried:
He descened into Hell*
The third day He arose again from the dead:
He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God, the Father Almighty:
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost:
the holy catholic church:
The communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins,
The resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen
* I agree with Calvin that Christ descended into hell on the Cross when He cried:
:My God, My god, Why hast Thou Forsaken me?"
Tom Z
"I agree with Calvin that Christ descended into hell on the Cross when He cried:
:My God, My god, Why hast Thou Forsaken me?"
Tom Z
I've loved the Creed, but always skip over that line. This is so much richer. Thanks, Tom Z, for sharing this inspiring concept.
What happened to the teachings of Jesus about LOVE?
Do Unto Others
Love your Enemies
Blessed are the Merciful
=
Doesn't the 2011 world (including SDA) need that sort of creed more than
"Born of the Virgin Mary ...sitteth on the right hand of God, the Father Almighty"
=
I think a creed doesn't matter except for how we practice it in our daily lives, and I can't see a lot of difference because Mary was a virgin (or not) and whether Jesus is now sitting on the right or left side of God??
I had a Fundamentalist uncle who lived for a while on a farm in Iowa where the only church within radius was one that started every service with the Apostles Creed. I guess he didn't have any trouble with "descended into Hell" but he choked up on the line about "holy catholic church" - until they explained to him the difference between little c "catholic" and big c "Catholic."
Add your comment