First of all, let's throw out the word "church"... for now. The history of the word "church" is slightly convoluted and even misleading. It has a whole lot of connotations wrapped up with it and no small amount of baggage. However, once we've rid ourselves of "church" (the word, not the concept) what we are left with is this: ekklesia (also sometimes spelt ecclesia; either way it is a transliteration of the Greek word, εκκλησια).
Ekklesia is the word used in the NT that we usually have translated for us as "church" (Acts 19:32 is the exception; here ekklesia is used in its secular context... see def'n below). However, there is a lot of stuff packed into this one word. From Mounce's Expository Dictionary...:
"church is derived from ekklesia ('to call out'), so the church is the 'called-out ones' of God. In
its secular use ekklesia refers to the gathering of the competent citizens of a city-state in order to decide issues regarding laws, office appointments, and public policy. But the prototype of the NT ekklesia lies not in Greco-Roman history but in the assembly of God's people in the OT (cf. Acts 7:38) which developed into the Jewish synagogue as the gathering of the community of God..." (my emphasis).
In the Greek translation of the OT, the Septuagint (henceforth abbreviated as LXX - if you are unfamiliar with the LXX it may be worth while checking out one of my previous posts here), the word ekklesia shows up quite often (see, for example, 1 Chron. 28:8, Deut. 31:30, Micah 2:5, Neh. 7:66). In these cases that I found, ekklesia is always translated as assembly; and not just any assembling of a group of people, it is always the assembly of the people of God. In fact, the phrase the church of God comes not from the NT but the OT; from the LXX.
So, the roots of our word for "church" actually come from the OT assemblies ("ekklesias" LXX) when the people of Israel were "called out" for God's purposes. This is the basis for what would become the Jewish synagogue. And the Apostle Paul (who uses the word ekklesia more in his letters than anywhere else in the NT combined) used the basic synagogue structure when planting churches. Also, as a semi-connected tidbit, it was Paul's branch of the pharisees that believed that the LXX was equally inspired and authoritative as the Hebrew scriptures.
SO WHAT?
First: Contrary to popular belief "Church" is not just a NT thing. It has deep roots in the OT worship/covenant gatherings. When Jesus used the word ekklesia (Matt. 16:18; 18:17) he wasn't coining a new term. The people of Jesus'/Paul's day knew the word and what it meant; namely, the gathering together of God's people for God's purposes.
Second: Ekklesia is primarily a gathering/assembly of like-minded people. Recently I have heard a lot of people and read a number of books that are trying to combat the idea that the church is a building by saying, "you can't go to something that you are." This is partly right... but I want to draw a distinction here. I am not the ekklesia; we are the ekklesia. "Church" cannot, by definition, be attached to anyone or anything singular. I, by myself, am not the "church"; I can't gather/assemble with myself . A Christian standing by himself/herself is just that: a lone Christian. The ekklesia, as Paul describes it, is a body with many parts. A finger severed from the hand is just a finger; when attached to the hand it is part of the body. So, if you have any illusions that you are the "church" get rid of them. You are not the ekklesia; but we are.
I think that's enough for today. I'll be continuing with this exploration over the next few weeks so please add your voice to this discussion.
In your mind what aspects define "church?"
What aspects of today's "church" life do you think are scriptural?
What aspects are cultural (man-made/society imposed)?
12 comments:
I think the whole "liturgy" we use as part of our services are man-made/society imposed. I haven't seen anywhere in Scripture that states we need to sing 5 praise songs, take an offering, and have someone preach for 30 minutes. I think church today has come away from the community interaction of the ekklesia and has become a much more formal time of listening.
Hey Timmy,
Thanks for the return. Sounds a little rantish- with grace. I like it. I'm currently reading Cavey's The End of Religion, Nav Press. I think you'd enjoy it.
Have you read, "Why Men Hate Going To Church?" I would appreciate a book review when the ranting spirit cometh upon you.
luv dadb.
I haven't read either of these books yet, but "Why Men Hate Going To Church" is sitting right next to me in my "to read" pile.
I think you're totally right, Karis. All of our services are structured to fit our own sensibilities. The funny thing is that it doesn't matter what kind of Order of Service you have... they are all made up. Because we have no scriptural precedent for a worship structure it doesn't matter if it's a formal liturgy or a completely free-form service; they are all man-made and informed by tradition.
The only real guide for worship we have is from the OT and that is for the Temple which was sacrifice-focussed. But now that Christ has become the all-sufficient sacrifice we no longer need a sacrifice driven structure (although some would use this point to say that our services now need to point to Christ's sacrifice through Communion).
But the fact is that you are right. The NT provides no clear guidance as to what ekklesia looks like when we gather together... but more on that in the next post.
I think the NT sets the president of what the church is to "be" and not "do". We are to "be" imitators of Christ, we are to "be" children of God. To "be" a people of love and grace that gather together to inspire each other to good deeds.
But "doing church" should really depend on the people of our church and of our communities. What are the needs and giftings of our people? How can we as a local community of believers make a difference? Sometimes we try and force "doing church", but if we are to really "be" the church, doing should come naturally, and look different everywhere. But instead we often want what that church has, or what that church can do. Instead of being who we are.
Look forward to continuing this with you. You should sign a 12 year contract for doing this:)
Tim S.
I agree with Tim S. A church in Africa is not going to look the same as a church in Canada, and they shouldn't. But as long as who they are in Christ and who they follow is clear, then the structure of the service doesn't really matter, does it?
I've always wanted to plan a service that is completely changed with interaction and songs in different places, but some people don't like that around here and the changes are actually distracting for their personal worship so I don't think it's a problem to have a structured service in our structured society. When people feel distracted and uncomfortable, occassionally it can be helpful for them to learn new concepts, but it can also be harmful if they are always on edge and they don't feel like they can really concentrate on who God is.
MY THOUGHTS & RESPONSE TO LISA:
It should absolutely matter what the structure of a morning service is or lack there of! Whether it looks like our modern liturgy or a meld from the OT & NT!
Completely changing a morning service from what we know today would be insane! But with that being said, one can take small steps of change.
For me personally... church should not be comfortable! Church should not be structured!
Church should be intentionally uncomfortable, pushing people out of their boxes. Smashing their boxes to pieces, because in that place I believe that is where we can truly experience God.
Tim:
Is there a place to adapt the OT, temple worship with the NT worship formats?
Of course there is no "right" or "wrong" service structure. Lisa is completely right; time, culture, etc all influence how God speaks to His ekklesia and how they worship Him.
In that sense, no, it doesn't matter what structure you have because it's going to vary from ekklesia to ekklesia.
But yes, of course, it matters what kind of structure you have because God is a God of order and Paul (in 1Cor.) is very concerned that things be done in an orderly way... it's just that even "order" looks different from place-to-place.
IMHO you silly ducks are saying the same thing!
Jared: I'll get to that :)
Perhaps I'm slightly illiterate when it comes to texting and email shortcuts, but what does IMHO mean?
I think that NT worship is somewhat based on Jewish Synagogue worship. We do know that the early church sang. We do know that reading the Word was central. We know there were sermons. The sermons in Acts focus on Jesus and the Resurection. We do know that at First Church in Antioch there were prophets and teachers. We know from 1Cor that certain spiritual gifts were exercised- at least in Corinth.
We know that worship started at 11:00am on Sunday and had to be out by 12 so we could beat the Corithian Pentecostals to the restaurants-at which only pagans worked so Christians would not have to work but could eat on the Lord's Day. You are required to not tip so everyone will know you are a Christian.
We know that all men had to wear long sleaved white shirts. dark ties and tight suits in order to please God. Women as you know wore no makeup and long dresses.
Of course the "Authorized Version" is the only authorized version. Singing only sappy victorian songs such as "I come to the garden alone while the dew is still on the roses" is manditory. So there!!!
Say Tim how about an analysis of the need(?)to sing at worship and the contents / theology of current praise/worship songs. I would value an analysis of how contempory churches deal with the idea of actually reading Scripture at worship. (You know that is the hobby horse I ride). Thanks.
IMHO = in my humble opinion
dadb - you forgot to mention that we know that singing any faster than funeral dirge speed was forbidden, and to do so would put the wheels of church discipline in place...
I would also be interested in hearing thoughts on "Why Men Hate Going to Church."
Post a Comment