Another human production of using unsound words that corresponds with the unscriptural practices is the use of the word “church”. First, let us be reminded as to the personal accountability to sound words and to Paul’s charge not to teach a different doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3-4). It is within the same context that Paul identifies teaching that is contrary to sound teaching (1:10) and warns of a time that is coming when people will not endure it. On the contrary, they will “heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables” (2 Timothy 4:3-4). God’s men must speak “the things that befit the sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1), “speak as the oracles of God” (2 Peter 4:11), and “hold the pattern of sound words” taught by Paul through the guidance of the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 1:13-14). The vehicle of thought is words and the sound words are the words spoken by the apostles that revealed the mind of God. These words were later written down (Ephesians 3:1-3, 2 Pet. 1:19-21). It remains the infallible guide to this day. In an effort to honor God and uphold that teaching, we must seek to avoid confusion in the use of words by making every effort to use biblical words and maintain the integrity of their meaning. If inspired words are considered “sound” from the standpoint that they benefit the soul (2 Tim. 3:16-17) and promote our spiritual well-being, then “unsound” words would be words that propagate ideas and thoughts that are unhealthy. The popular question, “what is wrong with it” is often designed to justify not living healthy. It’s like people in the habit of eating “junk food” while defending their practice to family members with, “what’s wrong with it?” Rather than be concerned with eating healthy and asking what is right with practice, we would prefer to do what we like and then challenge others by proving what is wrong with it. The answer to the question is simple. Poor choices are not always a violation of some specific prohibition, but the mere fact that it is not healthy and leads to further complications. The use of certain words is unhealthy because they produce adverse conditions and lead to further complications. The vocabulary of the religious leaders is filled with words that communicate concepts that are not in harmony with the teaching of Jesus and His apostles. Such concepts generate ideas that produce certain practices that cannot be done in the name of Jesus.
It has been explained that we use the word “church” accommodatively when referring to a “church building” or “going to church.” In this way, it is reasoned that everyone knows what we are talking about. Unfortunately, everyone does not know what we are talking about because it is used in a variety of ways. Other expressions commonly heard include “the church on the corner,” “cleaning the church,” or “painting the church.” Because we choose to accommodate others in the wrong use of this word, we may be contributing to a misunderstanding. Rather than thinking that we are confusing the meaning of the word “church” when we use it in this context, it is the opinion of this author that we are using the word in accordance with the culture of our day. Some who understand the meaning of the word from which it is translated, believe that the church is not a building, even though many still insist on using the word when referring to it. Of course, there may be a logical production to this practice, seeing the interaction among God’s people is limited to “services” done in a “church building.”
It is important that we explore the Greek word “ekklesia” from which the word “church” is translated.
- Translation of “ekklesia” and the use of the word “church”
The word “ekklesia” is translated “assembly” or “gathering.” But, like any word study, its usage will reveal as much about its meaning as its dictionary definition. The English word, “church” is not a good translation of ekklesia but we continue to use it like we use the word “baptism.” The difference is that baptism is a transliteration of the Greek word “baptizo.” Rather than translate it, they chose to form an English word by mirroring the Greek letters into English letters (transliteration). Yet, both words conveyed meanings that compromised its true meaning because of the popular thought of the day. To propagate the institutional view, the thought of “the called out” of God, i.e., God’s people were suppressed in order to support the idea of the church being an institution/organization. To support this idea, the Fathers depicted the church as the source of truth instead of the inspired Word being the source of truth. Since the English word “church” conveyed that meaning, it was the chosen translation needed for certain men to continue their rule over the people. This was one of the fourteen demands of King James when ordering the translators of 1611. In one instance, the word “church” is used when ekklesia is not even present in the text (cf. Acts 2:47).
In addition, some traditions make a distinction between “church universal” and “local churches”. Thus, we hear about “placing membership in” a church or “belonging to” a church. In this context, we hear of “giving to the church,” “getting ready for church,” “having church,” “church clothes,” “they left the church,” or “being faithful to the church.” These refer to a local organization to which one belongs and through which an individual interacts and works. Unlike Catholicism, this organization may limit the rule of elders to be only those who are a part of their church membership. Yet, it is still an organization with a simple hierarchy. It is taught that each local church is an organized functional body that one must join (as Paul did the church in Jerusalem) in order to perform certain duties that can only be accomplished through it.
In response, we do not deny the importance of fellowship and togetherness, but we do deny that one must be a member of one of these local church organizations in order to do the work God has assigned his people. In fact, there is not one thing that God requires of saints that can’t be accomplished without forming a local church organization. The passages taught to support this concept is an example of proof-texting at its finest but you supply the passage and we will study it together.
In addition, since God’s people “broke bread from house to house”, to identify them today with an organization, problems exist in what that organization is authorized to do and the difficulty in distinguishing social and spiritual functions. Debates and division occur because some want to build “fellowship halls” or use the building for a wedding. Others have the less-occasioned “church potlucks” in a home or separate public facility. One has a fellowship hall that is in a “church building” while the other is in a home used for a “church” function. Still, the concept of “church” (organization) is present whether in a church building or a home. If it is correct to speak of a “church potluck,” then it is correct to understand it as the function of the church organization. One can already perceive that we use the word “church” as the function of an organization rather than individual saints. By the way, such divisions would never occur without the formation of local church organizations.
- Use of the Terms used in this Study
For the purpose of our study, we will seek to clarify the way we use the word “church.” I propose to use exactly as it was designed by those who promoted its translation. It is the institution. Of course, the Greek word, ekklesia is believed to be a physical gathering of people. Undoubtedly, the common use of the word ἐκκλησία (ekklesia) was used to refer to a gathering, a meeting, or an assembly of persons for a variety of reasons. This is the meaning the lexicographers give it. Some insist on the dictionary meaning of the word believing that the church and/or ekklesia is such when it is physically gathered together. If correct, the church is the church only when they assemble together in one place and no longer the church when dismissed. To correct this misunderstanding, most people recognize what is commonly called “the universal church” and it is not physically gathered together. Yet, they would maintain that the biblical use of the word church as a physical assembly is applied to a local church because they can come together in a place. So, we are led to believe that the ekklesia is accurately applied only to the local church but not to the universal church since the universal church cannot physically gather in one place.
This distinction in defining local and universal concepts of the church appears to be an arbitrary distinction to support our doctrines. There is a distinction where the word “ekklesia” is used to describe both a relationship of people with God and one another without reference to place and a relationship of people in a specific location. How can this be? We will explore this in our next post.
[contact-form][contact-field label=”Name” type=”name” required=”true” /][contact-field label=”Email” type=”email” required=”true” /][contact-field label=”Website” type=”url” /][contact-field label=”Message” type=”textarea” /][/contact-form]