I’m very convinced that Christians use the word “church” rather differently than the Bible itself does.
Of course, all of us know that the Bible never refers to a building as a church.
But beyond that, I have found at least three ways the Bible uses the word, and then two other ways I believe we can use the term accurately.
1. The church is sometimes spoken of as a completed people. These are the references where the church being spoken of is made up of all those who belong to Christ of every age and every place.
Some refer to this as the “invisible” church, but that would be slightly inaccurate. The Bible may speak of the entire visible, living church at a point in time. What is important is that that the “whole” or “completed church is in mind. The church is “less visible” to any one of us than it is to God.
We should keep in mind that this sense of the church is always spoken of in relation to Christ- his “body” for instance- or the apostles. This is not the organized local congregation.
When Jesus said “I will build my church,” it was this church he was speaking of. The 144,000 in Revelation 7 are the whole church on earth, while the unnumbered church in the second half of the same chapter is the entire completed church of all times and places. Many references in Colossians and Ephesians are to the church in this completed sense.
All those who belong to Jesus are part of this church, with all its benefits and promises.
2. Church may also refer to all the Christians in a particular location, relation or situation.
Most of the time the New Testament speaks of the church, it is referring to all the believers in a particular city or geographic region, such as the church in Galatia, Corinth or in Rome. No names of individual congregations are ever used other than houses where particular meetings take place. It is obvious that the Christians in an area felt this loyalty strongly.
The Apostles address these regional churches and Jesus does the same in Revelation 2 and 3. It is strange that Christians today almost never use this way of speaking about the church, as a result of out many painful divisions.
The evidence of the New Testament and early church history indicates that bishops presiding over these areas were the key leaders in the church. Seeing a bishop as “your” particular shepherd was basic to geographic identity. These “regional/city” shepherds were in many ways the key to unity.
It is difficult to know how much organization and what kind of boundaries were at work in a regional church. I believe bishops were regional leaders, but there is some evidence that elders and deacons were not only congregational leaders but also exercised authority in a particular geographic area.
For example, in Titus 1:5, Paul tells Titus that his mission was to appoint elders “in every town.” The deacons appointed in Acts 6 seem to have a ministry beyond just the church in Jerusalem, as we see with Phillip.
Other kinds of relationships also stand in the area between the completed church and the local congregation. These may include James or Peter addressing Christians in a particular situation, such as the twelve tribes in the dispersion (James), or particular exiles (I Peter.)
3. Church is also used of individual congregations who meet and function together, usually in a house or a particular place where meals or worship can take place together.
Paul, in Romans 16:1-3, addresses the church that meets in a house. The Corinthian letter also shows us house churches or meetings in a public hall. 2 and 3 John clearly have house churches in mind.
Paul says that the Corinthians leave their homes and come together to eat. Is this house churches coming together as a larger group? Or families coming to a house church gathering?
House churches were most likely the place were elders functioned as “pastors” to individual congregations, but at the same time these gatherings were aware of their connection to the larger church in their city or region, and to the church as completed, Christ-purchased whole body.
In these congregations, the Lord’s Supper was celebrated, some baptisms were likely administered (while others may have been larger gatherings), discipline was carried out (see Jesus in Matthew 18) and worship occurred.
The Didache, an early Christian document describing church life in the late first/early second century, seems to be describing a network of house churches with connectedness and unity with those in their area.
It would be interesting to know how much diversity of various kinds occurred from house to house, but it is almost certain that there was diversity on various levels, and as we can see, some divisions.
There are two other senses of church I think are solidly Biblical, though the word itself is not used.
4. Jesus says in Matthew 18, the same chapter where he spoke about local church discipline, that where two or three or gathered in his name, there he is in the midst of them.
I believe this indicates that smaller gatherings, within families, friendships, workplaces, schools, mission/ministry teams, etc., are “the church” in a way that is less than formally complete, but nonetheless true, as Christ promises to be present. The may not be churches or the church, but they are “church” in a true sense in their particular setting.
5. Where one person is isolated, they alone are the church. The Ethiopian Eunuch was “the church” in a very real sense, as is any one of us who find ourselves isolated from other Christians for various reasons.
I’d simply like to suggest that we remember all of these ways of speaking of church are important. As a divided and imperfect church, we all should pray for manifestations of unity and returning to the New Testament’s view of church. But we should also realize that any one of us may find ourselves outside of a local congregation, but still part of Christ’s church and Christ’s mission.
Local congregations are vital to the movement Jesus began. But any one of us may, due to circumstances, events, providence, service or even sin, find ourselves relying less on a congregation and more on smaller groups or the church in an area/city.
We should promote the New Testament sense of church, and be critical- even opposing- forms of church that wind up as detrimental to the pattern we see in the New Testament.
[...] a href=’http://www.internetmonk.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/jesushalf3.jpeg’>The latest post at Jesus Shaped Spirituality is a basic discussion of how the New Testament speaks o… [...]
A good introductory book on house church is Steve Atkerson’s Ekklesia.
Don’t you hate it when your computer turns your “8″ and “)” into a little smiley dude with sunglasses?
Wow Michael-I think this is one of the best posts yet. It really takes the idea of Church to a whole new level. I really think about why their is not at least denominational cooperation, you touched on our division that we have now among individual “churches”, I think these are related.
I just want to say thanks for such a brief, concise but altogether thorough look at Church.
Since I’ve been reading/listening about Orthodoxy for two years now or so, I finally picked up the book everyone says is the English introductory primer, “The Orthodox Church” by Timothy Ware (Bishop Kallistos Ware). And as I read the above, it struck me that this post had a lot in common with the some parts of the last chapter of that book, “The Orthodox Church and the Reunion of Christians.” Interesting.
Historically, from the first century on, the Bishop of a particular geographic area defined, ministered, and led the Church of that area, which almost always met in various smaller groups. However, any time I hear the term “house church”, I wonder if people are conflating the sort of house and household in which those churches met with the single family nuclear households (and physical structures) we find in our present life. If so, that would be a mistake, I think, on several different levels. But that almost becomes a separate study to explore.
Interesting post Michael. However, I can’t simply brush off the current divided state of the church. I can’t see how people can possibly justify calling someone “Lord” while living in open rebellion to the extremely clear commands, instructions, and expectations of the church throughout the NT. But that’s how most of us are living. I don’t have any magic answers. Most of the “churches” are in schism with each other because of fundamental differences in the person named Jesus as they describe him. (And often, as a result, in differences in the way they describe the other persons of the Trinity.) That’s not simply a difference in practice or an area where various opinions are OK. Those are differences in the God we worship. And I don’t see any easy way to work through that. On the other hand, this process of endless schism and division and life lived counter to the commands of the one we call Lord is not sustainable either. And the answer isn’t simply to continue to schism and divide — which seems to be what we’re actually doing.
Sigh. Oh well, back to the regularly scheduled programming.
This is a very helpful description.
I would describe 3 as the local interdependent body and 4 as an expression of the body’s life together. But the body is something you are “in”. It’s a state of being.
For the last 1700 years we have made a category mistake when it comes using the word “church”. We use language exclusively that seems to indicate a place instead of a relational state of being.
Family and team are in the category of noun that is a relational state of being. You would never say –
“I go to family” or
“I go to team”
But you might say “I go to Christmas dinner with my family” or “my team trains at the football stadium”. But family and team are the same type of noun as church (a relational network).
Therefore when we say –
“I go to church” we put “church” in a location category like when we say “I go to the mall” or “I go to work”.
But church is a body (a relational network you belong to) and this would seem to encompass what you wrote about in 3 and 4.
“I pray with my church” “I eat with my church” etc.
Thus if you could interchange “church” with “family” or “team” then you’re using the word “church” correctly categorically (at the body level).
Your 5th description seems to be encompassed by the first one that we all are a part of and represent the universal church.
So I see church as having 3 N.T. uses –
1. The universal church
2. The city church (which is now extinct)
3. The body that gathers in homes (1 Cor. 12-14)
One curious thing we discovered while planting churches in homes is that they were never designed to survive and thrive without a deep connection to the city church. So now when we go to a new area we start a “city church” first where we do systematic discipleship training (school of Tyrannus style) and where the 5-fold ministry works and from there we can organically grow an unlimited number of body churches (20-40 people that live life as an interdependent body and gather in homes).
Michael,
Welcome back. Thanks for the post. It provides quite a bit to think about.
I have questions about your 5th usage of ‘church’ especially in light of what eden2zion says above in #5.
5. Where one person is isolated, they alone are the church. The Ethiopian Eunuch was “the church” in a very real sense, as is any one of us who find ourselves isolated from other Christians for various reasons.
eden2zion makes an excellent point about how we use the word church. My questions are related.
As you rightly point out, the Bible does not actually use ‘church’ in this way. Since eden2zion has already used the examples of ‘family’ and ‘team’ I will follow along. I think ‘church’ is relational. Just as saying I am a family doesn’t really make sense, it doesn’t make sense to say I am a church.
I can see that an individual Christian may be isolated in a variety of ways, but I don’t see how you reach the conclusion that one Christian alone can be a church. I think it is more appropriate to think of them in relationship with a church that they are isolated from. Certainly the desert fathers and hermits of all times have been isolated, but in their isolation they pray in union with the Church. Although they live a solitary life in the physical world, they remain always connected to and in relationship with a local church under obedience to a bishop or a religious order, and the Universal Church. Similarly a person may be separated from his family, but remain in relationship with them, even if contact is rare. The relationship to family or church is not dependent on physical proximity, or even close communication.
God Bless
Paul
eden2zion
I liked you post. Thanks. I can’t resist disputing one point.
2. The city church (which is now extinct)
This is false, unless you entirely reject the Catholic Church as even being Christian.
God Bless
Paul
For starters, I’m obviously not endorsing the RC view of the church in this post, though I may be closer to some aspects of the EO view.
I am thinking of very unusual situations, like for example, prison. If I am the only Christian in a prison, I am, for all practical purposes, the “church” in that prison, even though the word church/ekklesia implies a gathered community. The situation is abnormal. Another would be a person who is the only Christian in a class or in a business. Of course there are other Christians and a larger church, but not in proximity to the individual.
“Part” of the church may be more accurate technically, but in practice, the only preaching, etc that will be done in some situations is by the one.
Michael,
Although it is partly a matter of semantics, I think that ‘church’ and Christ’s conception of it is far too important to dismiss.
I agree that if a Christian is in prison with no one else but pagans, he is the only Christian. I don’t see how that makes him a church? Certainly, he has (or had) fellowship with Christians outside of the prison, and if he ever gets out he will continue to have fellowship. The fact that he is not able to physically participate in fellowship for some time, does not change the fact that his life as a Christian is in context of a community.
God Bless
Paul
Paul,
Again, let’s be frank.
When one’s view of the church is that Christ founded an institution to dispense sacraments, then of course you are right.
When one believes that the church is the human community created by the Spirit and the Gospel for mission and the building up of the saints, then the definition can be flexible.
It’s not a fighting issue. Your disagreement is noted.
peace
MS
I think we generally use the word congregation the way the word church was originally used.
Michael,
Long-time lurker (over at I-Monk), and first-time commenter (here).
In any case, your thoughts here are amazingly similar to my own. You may be interested to read what I wrote here:
http://www.sbcimpact.net/2008/05/07/the-one-true-church/
Sorry for “shamelessly promoting” my own stuff on my first comment here. I hope you don’t mind.
In any case, I think you are on to something here that I believe will become increasingly relevant in the days ahead, as God continues on in the business of restoring all things.
House churches are becoming more popular as people search for community in a megachurch world.
I joined a house church for about a year and it was amazing how it was perceived by the people around me, and even myself.
The house church met on Sunday night. Many of the “members” went to other churches on Sunday morning. And this is where the trouble began. As Mark Driscoll says in Confessions of a Reformission Rev, people, both in churches and in the world, do not take you seriously unless you meet on Sunday morning. That is true. We lost several “members” over time because they believed that they could not keep two allegiences. It was funny to hear some of these people introduce themselves to newcomers, because they said, “I am so and so from XYZ church” (their Sunday morning church).
This became a problem as the house church leader tried to do stuff in the community and enlist “members” to help, because most of the people saw it as a Bible study and not a church.
In addition, many of my friends scorned me for going to the house church, and even some accused me of being in a cult.
On the plus side, any money collected could go to help people. No building or salary to have to pay.
eden2zion said:
> 2. The city church (which is now extinct) This is false, unless you entirely reject the Catholic Church as even being Christian. <
I don’t reject the RCC as being Christian – it’s just not the church for the entire city. That leaves out a whole passel of genuine believers who don’t agree with/submit to the teachings of Catholicism.
However, in my town the city church is functional and growing. The individual churches in town have chosen to ignore their differences and work together as an expression of Christ in our community. This includes Methodists, Baptists, Catholics, the Christian Church, Pentecostals, fundamental and charismatic.
It’s been quite amazing, and refreshing to recognize that we agree on the basics of faith in Christ (e.g., the Nicene Creed) and can work together to win our community.
In the process, we’ve come to love one another and respect the different ways we express our devotion to Jesus. Part of the amazement has been that this ecumenism is being directed by the local pastors.
I found the book, Ante Pacem: Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine, to be a very interesting read on the matter:
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=548951&event=1008SBF%7C597705%7C1008
[...] started reading a post over at Jesus Shaped Spirituality today about the church. I think it was through a link and a link again or two in the comments [...]
Dan V. – That’s amazing good news. When the city church begins to re-emerge we’ve come a long way to finding our way back to being a church that seeks the Kingdom first.
In our context the creation of a vibrant city church allows simple churches that meet in homes to flourish which has been intimidating to the established churches in our city. There seems to be an underlying concern from paid church leaders that, once people discover they can survive and indeed thrive without a church centered on a weekly worship service and paid clergy what will happen to them.
I’m wondering whether the manifestation of the city church is going to truly promote unity or create the largest Christian controversy our next century.
eden2zion,
In answer to the question you asked at the end of your post. I think it will likely create the largest controversy of the next century if we get that long before the Lord returns. I am not trying to be pessimistic, but the answer flows from a conversation I had with a lady from another church.
We have three or four churches here in our town that work together to provide an AWANA program for the kids in our community on Wednesday nights. There are pastors from two of the churches that come and help(I am one of them) and a third church that supplies a large number of the workers. All in all it works pretty well as a ministry to kids who don’t go to any church in a lot of cases. But I was asked why the churches represented don’t do a better job of assimilating people from the program into the churches. I explained to her that the reason is that the first discussion point for some of the other pastors would be which church should they go to. In my opinion, it wouldn’t matter which church they go to as long as they go somewhere that teaches the Word of God as truth and I told her as much. But I am pretty sure I am in the minority on this, since it seems most churches are as much about their own “kingdom” here in town as they are about the Kingdom of God as a whole.
I am excited to be able to work with these other churches in this way and I think it is a great testimony to the community if they can see the churches working together. Actually in this case, most people from the outside wouldn’t be able to tell you which church or churches sponsor the program for the most part. It isn’t perfect, but it warms my heart every Wednesday night during the school year.
Shalom,
Jeff M
A great post and excellent responses. One think I want to say is that when it comes to ecclesiology, Christian have to start seeing this in a “Jesus-shaped” way. In terms of church, we have start with how did Jesus form his church, how did Jesus conceptualize the church, and then proceed on to how the apostles carried out the vision of Jesus.
for the record, I think they basically got it right. it was when the second generation of Christians started taking from the world and grafting it into the kingdom of God that we turned away from a Christ-centered view of the church.
a great book to read on this subject is “Pagan Christianity” by Frank Viola and George Barna. it is a great academic read that opens up your eyes and challenges your thinking on church history and practice.
[...] Spencer on how the New Testament defines church; oil (which some might see as more Christian gloom-and-doom and some as wise advice); and George [...]
Michael,
I realize now that I did not recognize that your concept of the “individual church’ was by no means original to you and seems to be an widely accepted understanding within the SBC. I followed some of the links above, and read a little more and I now see why you shut me down.
I was not actually intending to advance a specifically or exclusively Catholic argument. If I wanted to argue Catholicism I could have easily started with #2 or even #1.
I am very surprised to learn that your #5 is apparently acceptable in evangelical theology. Thats why I participate here, to learn.
I have also reread Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians and bits of other epistles, and for the life of me I still can’t figure out how you can base such an idea on the Bible.
I continue to pray for you, and hope you are enjoying Baseball.
God Bless
Paul
re individual as church: Only if you have multiple personality disorder. NT Greek ekklesia refers to assembly, by definition communal. If you wish to talk about the individual as a representative of Christ, fine. But an individual cannot be an ekklesia.
Please read the previous comments. I am not referring to the normal use of the term, but a very unusual situation.