Saturday, September 22, 2007

Towards a definition of "Church"

In our discussion of the Kingdom of God and his work among us, our efforts to define church will be, in my estimation, particularly helpful. Unfortunately, I think that it is also going to be particularly challenging. Last night I gave some thought and writing to this. Below is a first effort toward a definition.

The "Church" is the assembly of the covenant people of Yahweh. By nature of being in Christ and having fellowship based on our common Union with Christ, we are the "church".

Defining ekklesia as the "assembly of the covenant people of Yahweh" makes sense of usages of ekklesia that most modern definitions of "church" do not. For example, in Luke 7, Ekklesia is used to refer to ancient Israel and her assembly. Yet it is not translated "Church". It was the gathering/assembly of the covenant people of Yaweh. The marker of that covenant was circumcision and by nature of being descendants of Jacob, they were the ekklesia of God. The marker of the new covenant is the Holy Spirit and by nature of being 'in Christ' we are the ekklesia of God. It is our common union with Jesus that is the basis for our fellowship and 'defines' us as the ekklesia.

In this discussion, I am hesitant to even use the word 'church' for two reasons. First, there are so many strong and misguided ideas associated with that term. Our minds naturally turn to services and buildings when the term is used, yet there is no evidence in the New Testament that it evoked those ideas for the people of God in the first century. They certainly would not have thought of starting a non-profit organization registered with Caesar, calling it First ______ of Antioch, and then initiating a building campaign. Such readings of the text are woefully anachronistic. Secondly, I don't think that 'church' is the best translation of the word ekklesia. As I mentioned previously, Israel is referred to as the Ekklesia, yet it is never translated 'church'. Also in acts 17, ekklesia is used to refer to a rioting mob that has gathered in Ephesus because of Paul and his fellows. That mob is referred to as an Ekklesia, yet it is not translated "church". In both of these instances the term assembly most often used. Ekklesia ("Church") was not a new word that appeared in the Greek language after the resurrection of Jesus. It was a term that was used to refer to all kinds of assemblies. The different assemblies did not have different technical names (eg church), but were qualified on the basis of their fellowship. The usage of ekklesia in the New Testament is no different. Ekkesia was not used as a technical term to refer to a group of people with a specific religous affiliation. Modern Americans could say that they were a part of the "church" and people would understand that we were referring to the Christian faith. Paul could not simply say that he was a part of the "ekklesia". He would quickly be asked, "Which One?" The would wonder if he was referring to some sort of political assembly or perhaps an association of workers or a religious assembly. Simply by using the word ekklesia, they would not know. The word would always have to be qualified, unless the context was understood. Paul was a part of the assembly of those in Christ. The qualifying preposition would tell you everything you needed to know about what kind of assembly it was. That qualifying preposition was needed precisely because ekklesia was not a formal term in the Graeco Roman world, including Palestine and the world of first century Christianity. It is for these reasons that I think that assembly is the best translation of the greek term ekklesia. We are the assembly of those who are in Christ.

There are some more thoughts that I would like to add, but not enough time at the library! I look forward to seeing you guys tomorrow night.

3 comments:

  1. Hopeful Future,

    Jonathan and I were talking about this today at lunch. How can we draw together the idea of ekklesia as a people (i.e. the body of Christ) and ekklesia as the assembly of those who are in Christ? The former is who we are and the latter is what we do (among other things). Would an analogy to faith/works be helpful?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Further questions...

    When you say "assembly" do you mean strictly something quantitative involving the coming together of multiple disciples under the banner of their union in Christ. Or do you mean something more qualitative so that the people could still be called an ekklesia even if they weren't physically gathered? You allude to both in your post.

    ReplyDelete
  3. JGB,
    Thanks for the thoughts/questions. The idea of the ekklesia as a “people” and as an “assembly” do not need to be drawn together, in my estimation. I don’t see any chasm between the idea of ekklesia as an “assembly” and as a “people”. An assembly is an assembly of people. This goes without saying and doesn’t need to be stated. The ekklesia tou christou is the assembly of those who are in Christ, and that it is an assembly of humans is always understood. The usage of ekklessia in the new testament refers almost exclusively to a gathering and by implication the ones gathering. Perhaps the same coin, different sides.
    The question of whether ekklessia should be used to refer to a people who are not gathered is a very good one. The usage of ekklesia in the New Testament very seldom warrants the translation “Universal Church” or “all of the disciples in the whole world.” It is most often used to refer to an assembly (of people). If and when it does occur to refer to “all of the disciples in the world”, I think that the picture of a great assembly is not far from the mind of the author and the hearers, as that was the backdrop for the usage of the word.
    As far seeing the assembly as what we do and a people as who we are, I think that the two co-exist much more closely than that. Just as I don’t think that the first century disciples would have imagined an un-baptized believer, so I don’t think that they would have imagined a disciple that didn’t assemble with other disciples. In other words, I think that we would rarely (if ever) see the word ekklessia in the New Testament if the disciples did not actually come together. This, I think, gets at the heart of it, if I have understood the question.

    Michael

    ReplyDelete