The Elect

God's Chosen People

To the Christians dispersed among the nations Peter writes: "But
you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His
own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who
called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were
not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained
mercy but now have obtained mercy" (1 Peter 2:9,10).

What a privilege it is to be God's chosen people. "Blessed is the

nation whose God is the Lord, and the people whom He has chosen
as His own inheritance" (Psalm 33:12). On the last day, only God's
elect will be saved: "And He will send His angels with a great sound
of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four
winds, from one end of heaven to the other" (Matthew 24:31 //
Mark 13:27).

The concept of God's chosen people is first found in the Old

Testament. God chose Israel as His special people. "And because He
loved your fathers, therefore He chose their descendants after
them; and He brought you out of Egypt with His Presence, with His
mighty power" (Deuteronomy 4:37). "For you are a holy people to
the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a
people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the
face of the earth" (Deuteronomy 7:6 // Deuteronomy 14:2).

"But you, Israel, are My servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, The
descendants of Abraham My friend. You whom I have taken from
the ends of the earth, And called from its farthest regions, And said
to you, 'You are My servant, I have chosen you and have not cast
you away; Fear not, for I am with you; Be not dismayed, for I am
your God. I will strengthen you, Yes, I will help you, I will uphold
you with My righteous right hand'" (Isaiah 41:8-11).

Who are God's chosen people now? Jesus warned: "Many are called,
but few are chosen" (Matthew 22:14 // Matthew 20:16).
Now that the promised Messiah has come, God's chosen people are
they who accept Him as Lord and Savior: "For Moses truly said to
the fathers, 'The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like
me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever
He says to you. And it shall come to pass that every soul who will
not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the
people'" (Acts 3:22,23). "Even so then, at this present time there is
a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then
it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it
is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.
What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect
have obtained it, and the rest were hardened" (Romans 11:5-7).

The election is no longer based on physical lineage, but on one's

relationship with the Messiah: "He is Lord of lords and King of kings;
and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful"
(Revelation 17:14).

The election of physical Israel was but a sign of a higher spiritual

election on the basis, not of the lineage of Abraham, but of the faith
of Abraham. This was God's plan even before the creation of the
world. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who
has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in
Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the
world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,
having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to
Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of
the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the
Beloved" (Ephesians 1:3-6).

As Peter says in the salutation of his first letter, this election in

Christ is based on the foreknowledge of God: "Peter, an apostle of
Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia,
Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the
foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for
obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you
and peace be multiplied" (1 Peter 1:1,2).

Paul explains this more fully in his letter to the Romans. "And we
know that all things work together for good to those who love God,
to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He
foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His
Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He
called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also
glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us,
who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but
delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely
give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It
is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who
died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of
God, who also makes intercession for us" (Romans 8:28-34).

"Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender

mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;
bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has
a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you
also must do" (Colossians 3:12,13).

This election before the foundation of the world was in Christ, which
means that we are part of God's chosen people only if we are in
Christ and remain in Him. Peter tells us how we can make our
calling and election sure: "Grace and peace be multiplied to you in
the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, as His divine power
has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through
the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which
have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises,
that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature,
having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. But
also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith
virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-
control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness
brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. For if these
things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor
unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he who
lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has
forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Therefore, brethren,
be even more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if
you do these things you will never stumble; for so an entrance will
be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our
Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:2-11).

What is a Church? Biblical Basics for Christian Community

What is a church? Now that seems like a easy question, the sort of question one might
answer in an simple sentence or two. A church is a building in which Christians meet
for worship, is one obvious possibility. A church is a group of Christians who gather
for religious purposes is another. A critic might says, A church is a club for insiders
and hypocrites. These quick answers dont take us very far if we want to understand
truly what a church ought to be.

Youll notice that I moved from the descriptive what a church is to the prescriptive
what a church ought to be. This wasnt accidental on my part. In this series on the
church, Im not so much interested in what churches actually are, or in what people
think churches are, as I am in what churches should be. When I ask What is a church?
Im wondering about the ideal rather than actual.
My subtitle reveals the perspective from which I intend to address this question. I plan
to discuss the nature of the church from a biblical perspective. Thats the sort of thing
that evangelical Protestants like me tend to do, so I expect this comes as no surprise. I
believe that Bible is Gods inspired Word, and therefore is to be our chief guide both for
faith and life. In my opinion, nothing in this world tells us more authoritatively what the
church ought to be than Christian Scripture.
Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox believers would agree with me up to a point.
They affirm the authority of Scripture as Gods Word. But they add the parallel authority
of tradition, especially as embodied in the creeds and historic teachings of the church,
and in the bishops who guard and pass on this tradition. I believe that Christian
tradition ought to be taken very seriously. We Christians have much to learn from our
brothers and sisters who have gone before us and who have sought to understand and to
be the church. But, ultimately, Im convinced we should weigh their convictions and
practices in light of biblical teaching. For me, as for millions of Protestants across the
globe, Scripture trumps church tradition though without denying the value of tradition.
I also think its important to pay close attention to how Christians throughout the world
interpret Scripture when it comes to the nature of the church. We all tend to read the
Bible in light of our own cultures. We all project our meanings and values into the text.
Careful interpretation of Scripture can help us see what is really there and not be tricked
into thinking our projections are Gods revealed Word. But even then we cant escape
completely from our own worldviews and biases. Listening to what Christians from
other cultures hear the Bible saying (and not saying) can help us interpret Scripture
more accurately. But, even then, I believe Scripture stands authoritatively above the
experience of all Christians. Its always possible to say, I see how you understand this
text, but I believe your reading isnt quite right. Of course my reading might also fall
short.
At this point I wont go on and on talking about the interpretation of Scripture. I mostly
want to clarify where Im coming from in this series. My main starting points are
these:
1. Though I take seriously both Christian tradition and the experience of contemporary
Christians throughout the world, I believe Scripture has the final word when it comes to
matters of faith and practice, including the question of what a church should be.
Therefore, the best way to discover what a church should be is by a careful study of
Scripture.
2. One way we can get to the true meaning of the biblical text is by reading it in light of
its own cultural setting. If we want to understand the writings of the Apostle Paul, for
example, we would do well to see them in light of his Greco-Roman-Jewish world. Doing
this will help us avoid projecting our meanings and biases into the text.
3. At the same time, my purpose in this study isnt just to interpret the Bible accurately,
but also to see how biblical truth might take shape in our cultural setting (or settings)
today. I confess that I cannot escape from my culture as I seek to interpret Scripture.
And, I admit that my ultimate point is for churches to be in todays world more of what
God intends.
If youve done some reading in theology, youll recognize that Im going to address
questions of ecclesiology (from the Greek words ekklesia, meaning assembly, church
and logos meaning thought, word, principle). Im not planning to engage in a technical
conversation, however, one suitable only for biblical scholars and theologians. Rather, I
want to write for the ordinary reader, especially the average Christian who wonders
What is a church, really?
Note: If youre looking for a more theologically-oriented approach to the church than I
will offer here, but one that is suitable for well-educated lay readers, I highly
recommend It Takes a Church to Raise a Christian: How the Community of God
Transforms Lives, by Tod Bolsinger. This award-winning book explains the nature of
the church in light of the triune character of God, with lots of compelling illustrations
and practical implications.
Before we launch our investigation into biblical texts that reveal the nature of the
church, I want to explain why Im doing this series at this time. Ill take this on in my
next post in this series.
Why Write This Series on What is a Church??
This is the second post in a series Im calling: What is a Church? Biblical Basics for
Christian Community. Yesterday, I explained that Im planning to answer this question
from a biblical point of view, though without denying the value of church tradition and
Christian experience. I believe that, in the end, however, Scripture is the most
authoritative guide for matters of faith and practice, including questions of ecclesiology
(the study of the church).
One additional point of clarification might be helpful here. Notice that Im asking What
is a church? rather than What is the church? Im more concerned in this series about
the nature of a particular Christian community than the whole configuration of
Christians throughout the world and/or throughout the cosmos and/or throughout
history. Of course these issues of local church/global church are interrelated. But my
primary focus is on an individual Christian community, a church, if you will, rather
than the church (or the Church).

The sanctuary of Irvine Presbyterian Church, where I served as Senior Pastor for sixteen years.

Im taking on this series at this time for a variety of reasons. In part, it is an outgrowth of
my ministry as Senior Pastor of Irvine Presbyterian Church, where I served from 1991
through 2007. During my tenure there, I found that folks often have differing visions of
what a church should be, and that these differences can be either enriching of church life
or debilitating, or both. If, for example, people joined Irvine Pres with a particular image
of what a church should be, but it turned out that we were not what they had imagined,
then its likely they would become disillusioned and start looking for another church
that offered what they wanted. Nobody won when this happened. If, on the other hand,
members of my church had a clear, common vision of what a church should be, then
their experience would be more positive. Moreover, if our leaders shared this vision
together, then our church would be healthy and growing in the right direction.
Since leaving Irvine Pres in 2007, Ive been serving in a pastoral role with Foundations
for Laity Renewal, the parent organization of Laity Lodge. For over half a century, this
organization has been committed to the renewal of the Church as it takes shape in
individual churches. Thus, in my role as Theologian-in-Residence, Ive done lots of
thinking about the church and what helps it to be healthy. Ive also found myself in
dozens of conversations with pastors and lay leaders across the denominational
spectrum, and Ive had the chance to preach in Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist,
Lutheran, and Congregational churches. So my perspective has broadened in the last
four years.
As I write this series, there are lots of competing visions of the church in the
marketplace of Christian theology and practice. Rick Warrens The Purpose-Driven
Church has had a major impact on Christian thinking about the church, not to mention
the practice of individual churches. This book has helped thousands of churches clarify
their mission and focus more intentionally upon it.
Younger Christians (and a few not so younger ones) tend to be influenced more by an
amorphous configuration of ideas and practices known as the emergent church or
emerging movement or something like this (see, for example, The Emerging Churchby
Dan Kimball). Many in this movement want to do church in a whole new way. Yet, often,
their experimentations are untethered to Scripture or even to a thoughtful ecclesiology.
Thus, they may fall prey to replicating the mistakes of the past, or to excessive
conformity to culture, or even to heresy.
Yet, we who are older and more comfortable with the established church should not
dismiss out of hand the efforts of the emergent folk. At least they are trying to deal with
a huge problem for churches, namely, the impact of our increasingly secular culture and
the resultant tendency of vast numbers of younger Christians to stop being involved in
the church. For a troubling look at this reality, see David Kinnamans new book, You
Lost Me.
Of course, besides the Purpose-Driven and emergent models of church, there are dozens
of other visions of the church floating around in the Christian atmosphere, ranging from
home-based Pentecostal communities to more traditional churches that emphasize
Reformed theology and the regular administration of the sacraments. Moreover, many
evangelical Christians continue to be drawn to more liturgical churches of the Eastern
Orthodox and Roman Catholic variety. Talk about a wide range of perspectives on the
church!
Then, you can throw into the mix the crises in which many of the well-established
American denominations find themselves, including my own, the Presbyterian Church
USA. Though our potentially-schismatic squabbles dont have to do primarily with the
nature of the local church, they have touched upon this issue, especially with respect to
who actually owns the property of a particular church. Many Presbyterians,
Episcopalians, Lutherans, and others have been asking what it means for a local church
to be connected to a larger body of believers. Is this essential? Or optional? Should such
connections ever be broken? And if so, when? Though I dont intend to address these
questions much in this series, they do loom over this investigation to some extent.
Then there is the impact of the Internet on individual churches. Some Christians find
that their primary interaction with other Christians comes in the form of an online
church. They believe this is an adequate experience of church. Many other churches see
the Internet, especially the social media dimensions of the Internet, as crucial for the
church, but theyre not quite sure what to make of it. I will not be focusing here on this
issue, but I do believe that we will be unable to use the Internet wisely as churches
unless we have a solid, right biblical ecclesiology.
As I begin this series, Im particularly eager to help well-meaning Christians overcome
some of the confusion they feel about what the church should be. Even in one particular
church, even among leaders who share a common heart for Christ and a common
commitment to Scripture, youll find a wide range of visions of a church. Some of these
visions are derived from Scripture and to that extent are truthful. Others come from a
wide variety of other sources. Some of these are helpful; many are not. In my next post, I
want to consider where people get their ideas of what a church should be.
Where Do People Get Their Ideas of Church? Part 1
People today have a wide variety of ideas about what a church should be. If you ask a
dozen people youd probably get a dozen different answers.
One of my favorite answers to the What is a church? question came during a childrens
sermon preached by a young seminarian. This story was related to me by someone who
was in the congregation that fateful day. For those of you unfamiliar with this genre, a
childrens sermon comes in a worship service when the folks twelve and under are
brought forward for a sermonette by the pastor or some other church leader. Often the
sermon begins with a question like, What is God? The preacher gets a bunch of funny
and incorrect answers, and then offers the right answer, usually with a visual aid.
At any rate, a young man was doing his seminary internship at a church. As the low man
on the totem pole, he got tabbed for the childrens sermon and decided to talk about
what the church really is. He gathered the children together in the front, and began with
his question: So, boys and girls, what is a church? He fully expected that the kids
would say a church is a building and a place to go on Sundays and so forth. Hed get to
wrap up with the correct answer, that the church is not the building but the people. As
soon as the seminarian uttered his question, one of the boys shot his hand into the air.
Yes, the young preacher said, what is a church?
The gathered assembly of believers in Jesus, was the boys answer.
The seminarian was speechless, not knowing where to go from here. The kid had stolen
his punch line. From the seminarians point of view, there wasnt anything more to say
about the church. So after a few seconds of embarrassed silence, he thanked the boy for
his answer and dismissed the children. (What the seminarian did not know was that the
theologically-precocious boy was the son of a seminary professor in the congregation,
and should never have been called on first!)
Most people dont get their ideas of church from their seminary professor fathers,
however. Rather, then get them from a wide variety of less sophisticated sources. Let me
suggest a few obvious ones.
1. People get their ideas of church from their past experience of
church.
Indeed, this is surely true for people who have spent some time in church. These days,
more and more people come to church with no religious background whatsoever. But
most folks still have at least some prior history of church, even if its limited to weddings
and funerals. As a pastor, Ive found that people usually have both positive and negative
experiences from which to draw. They want a church to be like what theyve experienced
in some ways, but not like other aspects of previous churches where theyve been
involved.
People tend to have diverse feelings about their past church experiences. Some come
with negative memories. Others look back through the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia.
For example, Ive known people to complain about some innovation in worship and talk
about how wonderful their church was growing up. When I ask if their church helped
them to know Christ, to grow as his disciple, or to have a desire to worship God, theyll
say something like, No, but thats not the point. Looking back, they love what they
remember about worship in their childhood church, even though it didnt help them
know God better.
2. People get their ideas of church from pop culture.
 Even folks whove never stepped into a church might
have seen the television show 7th Heaven (about a minister and his family) or The
Simpsons, which frequently portrays The First Church of Springfield with its lovingly
hypocritical pastor, the Rev. Timothy Lovejoy. Countless millions of people have seen
the church through the lens of The Da Vinci Code, with its deluded believers and
diabolical bishops.
On a happier note, millions of others have read about the exploits of Father Tim, the
beloved, Episcopal priest in Jan Karons Mitford Series. Here, there are no sinister plots
in church, only a bunch of ordinary, small-town folk sharing life together in a
traditional, small-town church. One of my favorite series of novels, The Starbridge
Series by Susan Howatch, explores the psychological, theological, and spiritual struggles
of religious leaders in the Anglican church.
Of course there are dozens of other images of the church in pop culture. These often
shape the expectations of Christians and non-Christians alike. Unfortunately, it seems
that often these images are negative, with pastors and church members pictured as
judgmental hypocrites or unthinking extremists. Churches and church leaders can be
pretty messed up, Ill admit, but there are some good ones out there too. So, pop culture
may not be the most reliable source of ideas of church, even though it is influential.
Tomorrow, Ill consider two other common sources of ideas about church.
Where Do People Get Their Ideas of Church? Part 2
Yesterday I began considering the sources of peoples ideas about church. To review,
here are my first two points:
1. People get their ideas of church from their past experience of church.
2. People get their ideas of church from pop culture.
3. People get their ideas of church from the news.
Much of the time, what people get from the news isnt all that positive. The media are
generally not inclined to report on the good things that churches do, but church
scandals tend to make headlines because they draw viewers and sell advertising.
There are exceptions to this rule, however. For the past four years, I have been reading
the San Antonio Express-News, the third largest paper in Texas in terms of circulation.
The Express-News is owned by the Hearst Corporation. Though the paper reports on
church problems, Id estimate that 75% of its church-related stories focus on positive
aspects of church life and mission.
4. People get their ideas of what a church should be from a
projection of their personal needs and preferences.
Some years ago, a man started attending Irvine Presbyterian Church faithfully. He and I
had lunch together, during which he laid out his vision for how our church could get
involved in his personal mission. His was a valid mission to be sure, involving the
expansion of ethics education in schools. I explained to him that our church would be
glad to support him in this mission, but that it wasnt going to be our primary focus as a
church. He proceeded to lecture me on what the church ought to be and how our church
was falling short of this calling. In a nutshell, we needed to join him in his ethics crusade
as our number #1 priority. For a while, he tried to reshape our church according to his
vision. When this didnt happen, eventually he left in anger and disappointment,
believing that we werent what a real church should be. (Ironically, this man didnt even
profess to be a believing Christian!)
Ive seen this sort of thing happen time and again. People have a need and figure the
church is the sort of place that should meet their need. Sometimes its the desire to
expand ethics education. Sometimes its the need for friendship, or financial assistance,
or political activism, or, well, you name it. Folks take their needs and project them onto
the church.
To be sure, a church does meet many needs. Most importantly, a church should offer to
people a way to fulfill their need for God. Closely related to this, church can be a place
where people meet their need for deep, committed relationship with others. But this
does not mean the church should meet whatever needs people might happen to feel.
In my next post Ill address one more source from which people get their ideas of what a
church should be. This one, I believe, is often the most influential.
Where Do People Get Their Ideas of Church? Part 3
In my last two posts I began exploring various sources from which people get their ideas
of what a church should be. These included:
1. Past experience of church
2. Pop culture
3. The news
4. A projection of their personal needs and preferences
Today I want to explore one other source, a source that has a powerful influence on the
way people think about the church.
5. People get their ideas of church from analogous institutions.
People often expect the church to be like some similar organization or event. For
example, some people expect a church to be like a concert. When you go to a concert,
you file into an auditorium. You sit in rows and watch something happening on the stage
up front. If the concert is any good, you feel lots of positive emotions. At times you
might even get into the act by standing, clapping, or even singing along. You leave a
good concert feeling uplifted and satisfied by the performance. Church, for many people,
is just like this, only better, because you dont need a ticket, and dont even have to pay
anything if you dont want to.
Others think of church like a school. They come for religious education. When I lived in
Irvine, dozens of young parents start attending our church each year because they
wanted their children to receive moral training. And we did provide this sort of thing.
Children gathered in age-grouped classes. They had curriculum and teachers. They did
learn, or at least that was our hope. We also had lots of classes for adults. And we did
hope to educate people. In many ways, we were like a school.
For others, a church is like a club, perhaps a social club or a service club. We have
regular meetings. We have members and a process for joining. Members can become
leaders in the church. We do lots of different things together, including service projects
and social gatherings. At church, as in a club, we make friends and find a center for our
socializing.
Many people today see the church as some kind of store. Small churches are like
neighborhood mini-marts; large churches are like department stores. Both churches and
stores sell products. Both have professional staffs. Both market their wares in the
community, hoping to attract interested consumers. Larger churches, like larger
stores, offer a wide array of products. Smaller churches, like small stores, offer more
personal service but fewer products. If the church you attend provides what youre
wanting to consume, you continue to go there. If that church stops meeting your needs,
you think nothing of finding a better church, just as you might switch markets or
clothing stores.

Hoag Presbyterian Memorial Hospital in Newport Beach, California

Its also common for people to see thechurch as something like a hospital. When youre
physically sick, you go to a hospital to get well. Similarly, churches promise to help you
overcome your spiritual ailments. Both hospitals and churches have professional experts
to help you heal (doctors, pastors). Both hospitals and churches offer specialized
treatments for particular ailments (in churches: singles groups, AA groups, etc.). Both
hospitals and churches are staffed by people who care, or at least thats the way it should
be. Many churches and hospitals even share similar names: St. Lukes Hospital/Church,
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, etc.
All of these analogous institutions concerts, schools, clubs, stores, and hospitals are
like churches in many ways. Thinking of a church in these categories makes sense, to a
point. But to the extent that people see a church exclusively in light of these analogies, to
that extent they misunderstand essential aspects of church life. For example:
A church is like a concert, but its better to see a worship service as a concert in which
God is the audience and the worshipers are they performers, turning the concert
imagery upside down. If people come to a worship service thinking it will be like a
concert, then they might very well miss the main point of the service: to offer praise to
God, who is the audience of our worship.
A church is like a school, but a church offers much more than religious and moral
education. It seeks to transform peoples hearts and lives, not just to educate their
minds. And it seeks for join people together in life-changing community. People who
view church only as a school will miss much of what it has to offer.
A church is like a club, but unlike most clubs, membership isnt a privilege, but a gift,
and non-members are welcome to participate in virtually every aspect of club life. A
church, unlike a club, exists not just for its members, but especially for its non-
members. Those who think of their church like a club tend to exclude others and to
think that their church exists primarily to meet their own needs.
A church is like a store, but it ought to do far more than offer products for
consumption. A church will thrive only if its members are committed to the church in a
way far beyond consumer loyalty. So if you think your church is like a store, youll never
get truly involved in the life-giving, world-changing fellowship of the church.
A church is like a hospital in that it offers healing to those who are spiritually sick, just
like Jesus did. But a church is not like a hospital because it seeks, not only to get
patients well, but also to enlist them on the caring team. When you go to a hospital,
youre not expected to become a doctor or a nurse. When you got to a church, you
should join the care-giving team as well as receive care.
Ironically, biblical teaching on the church is rather like what Ive just laid out. Scripture
uses analogies to reveal the essence of the church. Each analogy has certain strengths;
each analogy also has certain limitations. So, for example, well soon see that the church
is meant to be like a human body. But it is not meant to grow old and die in three or four
generations. So, a church is both like a body and unlike a body. In the posts that will
follow in this series, Ill try to unpack the biblical analogies for the church. Taken
together, these will reveal the true nature of the church from Gods point of view.
When a Church is Not a Church, Part 1
When I was young, I learned the little rhyme that goes like this:
Here is the church,
Here is the steeple,
Open the doors,
See all the people.
 Of course it didnt dawn on me at the time that
I was getting deficient theology. Only later in life did I realize that I should have learned
a better rhyme:
Here is a building,
On top theres a steeple,
Open the doors,
The church is the people!
In my life, Ive probably heard a hundred sermons or teachings on the church. Ive
probably given a hundred more of my own. In virtually every one of these talks the same
point is made: The church is not a building. Its the people of God. Of course, in
common speech we refer to the place where Christians gather as a church. But this has
nothing to do with biblical theology and runs the risk of fostering a profound and
detrimental misunderstanding.
Nowhere in the Bible is the place where Christians meet referred to as a church. This
word appears around 75 times in our English Bibles, depending on the translation
(around 110 times if you include the plural). In almost every instance church is a
translation of the Greek ekklesia (from which we get words like ecclesiastical and
Ecclesiastes). Never does ekklesia refer to a building in which people gathered, for
worship or for any other purpose. (In fact, the earliest Christians didnt even have
special buildings in which to meet during the period in which the New Testament was
written. This came much later. For the most part, the first Christians met in private
homes or other non-religious gathering places.)
At this point, youre probably commending me for my grasp of the obvious, or perhaps
thinking about skipping this blog post altogether. But nows the time I take an
unexpected turn. For I would argue that the use of church in our English New
Testaments as a translation for ekklesia is problematic at best, and misleading at worst.
Yes, thats right. Im saying that the word church should not appear 75 times in our
Bibles, or 110 times including the plural. This, I fear, is a seriously misleading
translation.
Now you might really be thinking even more seriously about skipping this blog post,
since Im now arguing a minority position versus almost every English Bible translation
and Greek-English dictionary. But before you dismiss me as hopelessly eccentric, please
allow me to defend myself.
One line of defense would be to point to the most recently published English translation
of the New Testament, The Kingdom New Testament: A Contemporary Translation, by
N.T. Wright. I have not had time to check every possible translation ofekklesia. But I
was impressed to see that Wright does not use church in such verses as 1
Thessalonians 1:1. Usually this verse includes the phrase, To the church of the
Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Wright prefers: to the
assembly of Thessalonians in God the father and the Lord Jesus, the Messiah (1 Thes
1:1). Not church, but assembly. I think Wright is right on in this translation.
No matter what connotation for the English word church you prefer, either the
architectural one, the congregational one, or the institutional one, one thing is clear:
church has religious connotations. If you were to say, I mean church in a non-
religious sense, that would sound silly. A church is either a building used for religious
purposes, or it is a group of people who have gathered for religious purposes, or it is a
larger configuration of people who have been organized for religious purposes (i.e. the
Roman Catholic Church). Say the word church and anyone who understands English
will think religious entity.
This was not the case for ekklesia in first-century Greek parlance. If, for example, a
Christian traveler showed up on the streets of Corinth in the first-century A.D. and
asked for the location of the ekklesia, nobody outside of the tiny Christian community
there would direct him to a religious gathering. Nobody would think he was asking
about anything that had to do with the gods or with religious practices.
An ekklesiawasnt anything like a church. Greek had words for religious gatherings,
words such asthiasos (cultic society) or synagoge (Jewish gathering).
But ekkelsia wasnt one of these words.
Ironically, one might same the same thing for the use of the word ekklesia in the Greek
translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint, abbreviated as LXX). This word
appears about 100 times in the LXX, almost always translating the Hebrew termqahal.
Both words, ekklesia and qahal, have the basic meaning of assembly or gathering.
They can be used to describe a gathering for religious purposes, but the words
themselves dont have religious connotations. They need something like of the Lord to
make the religious setting clear.
So, if church in English always suggests something religious, whether buildings or
gatherings of people or organizations, and ekklesia does not have this meaning in the
time when the New Testament was written, then translating ekklesia by church almost
certainly leads to some level of misunderstanding on the part of the reader. When it
comes to the vocabulary of the New Testament, truly a church is not a church.
So, then, what is the New Testament understanding of ekklesia? If this word isnt
equivalent to church, what other English word or words might better render the sense
of ekklesia? To these questions Ill turn in my next post, though N.T. Wright has already
dropped a big clue.
When a Church is Not a Church, Part 2
In my last post, I argued something fairly commonplace: that the word church,
understood theologically, does not refer to a building but to the congregation who uses
it. This is not news, though it deserves to be repeated.
Then, I argued something fairly unusual: that the English word church is a poor
translation of the Greek word ekklesia, the word that is almost always rendered as
church in English translations of the Bible. I explained that ekklesia in standard first-
century Greek did not have a religious connotation, and therefore church smuggles in
meaning that was not present in ekklesia. So, you might wonder, if church isnt the
best translation of ekklesia, what might be better? Ill try to answer this question, first
by looking at the ordinary first-century meaning of the Greek wordekklesia.
The Ordinary Meaning of Ekklesia
Almost all New Testament uses of ekklesia are distinctive in comparison to secular
Greek, since ekklesia is almost always used to denote a particular gathering, that is, of
believers in Jesus. In Acts of the Apostles, however, ekklesia is used three times in a
more or less ordinary secular sense, though perhaps ironically.
The top portion of a statue of Artemis of Ephesus.

The context for this usage is Pauls ministry in Ephesus (a city in what is now western
Turkey). For two years, Paul preached the gospel there, with considerable success. Many
residents of Ephesus put their faith in Jesus and rejected their pagan practices. This led
to a sharp decrease in the sales of little silver trinkets of one of the most popular pagan
gods, Artemis. Those who made their living by making and selling these souvenir idols
became enraged, fearing the loss of their livelihood. So they stirred up their fellow
Ephesians, who all rushed together to the theatre at the center of town, dragging a
couple of Pauls companions with them. Acts tells us that the assembly in the theatre
was in great confusion. The Greek word translated as assembly is ekklesia (Acts
19:32).
When one man tried to address the gathering, he was shouted down because the pagan
Ephesians were biased against him, owing to his being Jewish. Finally, one of the civic
leaders of Ephesus managed to quiet the people down. He told them not to worry about
the worship of Artemis and to follow appropriate legal actions if they had been wronged
by Paul and his retinue. The leader concluded by saying, If there is anything further you
want to know, it must be settled in the regular assembly [ennomoi ekklesiai, literally,
the lawful ekklesia or assembly] (19:39). Then, Acts tells us, the official dismissed the
assembly [ekklesian] (19:40).
From this story in Acts we can learn several things about the word ekklesia. Most
simply, it meant assembly or gathering. It referred to some sort of meeting of people
who had come together for a particular purpose. In Greek society, the ekklesiawas the
assembly of full citizens in a particular city. (Most residents were not full citizens at that
time.) Thus, the ekklesia was rather like the city council in a modern American city in
terms of its authority.
Etymologically, the word ekklesia was derived from the verb ek-kaleo, which meant to
call people together or to summon them. This does not mean, however,
thatekklesia really meant the called-out people, as is often claimed by preachers.
Those who wrote the New Testament and those who read what they had written would
not have thought of ekklesia in light of its etymological roots, just as we dont think of a
flock gathered together when we hear the word congregation, which is based on the
Latin con (together) and gregare (to make a flock or grex). For speakers of first-century
Greek, the word ekklesia meant assembly without a hint of whether those who
gathered had been called out or not. Its like when you hear the word microwave. This
word denotes a certain kind of oven. You and I dont think of the fact that microwave
was derived from the combination of micro and wave, and uses high-frequency
electromagnetic waves. Rather, microwave means that white oven over there in which
I warm up my leftover pizza.
Ekklesia was a common Greek word for a gathering of people. Yet, it came to have a
special meaning in reference to the assembly of the voting citizens of a city. In this sense
it was the regular assembly referred to in Acts 19:39. But, as we saw in Acts 19:32 and
40, ekklesia could also be used to describe an unplanned and unruly crowd of people
(perhaps ironically).
As I mentioned in my last post, ekklesia was not used specifically for religious
convocations, not did it have religious overtones. The first-century Greek speaker would
not thought of the gods or of a religious gathering when hearing the wordekklesia. Thus,
if I were a Bible translator, Id opt for assembly or gathering rather than church for
most New Testament instances of ekklesia. I agree with N.T. Wrights recent translation
of ekklesia as assembly, as I mentioned in my last post. What gives the
Christian ekklesia its distinctiveness is not the fact that it is an ekklesia, but the fact that
it is an ekklesia in God. More on this later.
All of this raises some fascinating questions about the meaning of ekklesia in early
Christianity, and why the early Christians chose this particular word to describe their
meetings. Ill try to answer these questions in my next post.
When a Church is Not a Church, Part 3
Freedom of Speech, by Normal Rockwell

In my last two posts, I suggested that the Greek word ekklesia, which is usually
translated as church in our English New Testaments, did not have the religious
overtones we naturally hear when church is spoken. Because of this, Ive even
suggested that church is not the best translation for ekklesia. Assembly, it seems to
me, is better, even though it doesnt quite represent the nuances ofekklesia. You may
recall that ekklesia had a common and quite specific meaning. It denoted the gathering
of citizens in a Greek city, those who had authority over the city much like a city council
might today. (In actuality, the ekklesia would be like a peculiar combination of the
voters in a city and the city council. Perhaps the town meeting in a small New England
town would be the closest modern equivalent. )
The Earliest Usage of Ekklesia in the New Testament
Unquestionably, the earliest written use of ekklesia in the New Testament comes from
the letters of Paul. Scholars differ on which of Pauls letters was the earliest. Some opt
for Galatians; while others prefer 1 Thessalonians. Im in the others group for reasons
I wont go into here. When Paul wrote his first letter to the Christians in Thessalonica (in
Macedonia, an area of northern Greece), he began in this way:
Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the ekklesia of the Thessalonians in God the Father and
the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thes 1:1)
Presumably, of course, he had taught the Thessalonian Christians to think of themselves
as an ekklesia, so they would know what he was referring to when he used this word.
The phrase ekklesia of the Thessalonians would have had an established, commonly-
understood meaning in this city. It denoted the gathering of citizens to govern the city.
But Paul qualified his use of this phrase and therefore limited misunderstanding by
adding in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. The Christians gathered in
Thessalonica were not equivalent to the civic ekklesia. Rather, they were an alternative
assembly, one that met in God and Christ. In means something like by the work of
or under the authority of or for the sake of.
Given what weve seen earlier about the meaning of ekklesia, its quite likely that Paul
was referring to the actual gathering of Christians in Thessalonica, not some ideal
assembly. He envisioned that his letter would be read in this gathering and he was
addressing the people who were in fact present. Theres no evidence that he was
thinking, as we might think, of all the members of the Thessalonian church, whether
they were present for the reading or not. Paul was addressing a real assembly, an actual
gathering of people. These were the ekklesia of the Thessalonians in God and Christ.
Support for this understanding of church comes also from Pauls letter to Galatians. He
addresses this letter to: The churches [ekklesiais] of Galatia (1:2). The use of the plural
is telling here. When Paul writes a letter to the Christians in the region of Galatia (in the
center of modern Turkey), he does not think of them as some sort of spiritual group that
could be called a single ekklesia that never gathered together in the same place. Rather,
they were a bunch of ekklesiai, assemblies in the plural.
In some of Pauls later writings, notably Colossians and Ephesians, he expands the sense
of ekklesia beyond this basic, literal sense. As a matter of fact, I even think its possible
to speak of the scattered church. Ill discuss these matters later. For now, however, I
want to make the simple point that the essential meaning of ekklesiaincludes the notion
of an actual gathering of real people. Paul wouldnt know what you meant if you said,
The Thessalonian ekklesia didnt meet today. From his point of view, there would still
have been a few dozen Christians in Thessalonica, and they would still have had many
ties together in Christ and in the Spirit, but they wouldnt have been an ekklesia if they
didnt actually meet.
It may seem like Im making an academic and linguistic point here that is of interest to
scholars but otherwise of little practical value. On the contrary, I think what Ive just
said has profound implications for our actual understanding and practice of church
today. Ill explain this in my next post in this series.
When a Church is Not a Church, Part 4
In yesterdays post, I explained that the earliest Christian usage of the word ekklesia,
which is normally translated as church in English Bibles, referred to an actual
gathering of believers in Jesus. The ekklesia in Thessalonica didnt exist, therefore,
unless the Thessalonian Christians were actually together. So, when Paul wrote a letter
to this ekklesia, he didnt mean all the Christians in the city wherever they might
happen to be. Rather, he meant all the Christians in the city who were gathered
together at a certain time and place.
I realize that this might sound rather trivial, the sort of thing that advances academic
careers while boring ordinary people to death. But there are, I believe, important
implications of the meaning of ekklesia for our understanding of what a church is.
Implications for our Understanding of Church

Some of the children of Irvine Presbyterian Church worshiping during Vacation Bible School. Now thats what I call an
ekklesia!

Once we get beyond the church is a building mistake, we tend to think of a church as
all of the members of a particular Christian institution, whether they are present in the
gathering or not. When I was Senior Pastor of Irvine Presbyterian Church, if you were
to ask me, How big is Irvine Presbyterian Church? Id have said, Oh, we have about
750 members. I do not mean by this that we ever had all 750 in the same place at the
same time. In fact, that never happened because, among other things, we didnt have a
room large enough for this number of people. In common speech, Irvine Presbyterian
Church was composed of those who decided to consider this particular group of people
their religious home, whether they showed up very much or not.
This understanding of church has some benefits, to be sure. It means that youre part of
the church if youre sick on a Sunday and cant show up for worship. This is comforting,
to be sure. But there is a downside to thinking of a church as a collection of people who
may or may not ever actually be together. This downside is illustrated in a conversation
Ive had with people time and again throughout my pastoral life. For example, a woman
was talking about her church, so I asked, Oh, are you a member of _______
Presbyterian Church. Yes, she answered, Im a member there. But I dont attend very
often. If the church has nothing to do with actual gatherings, then this is fine. But if the
essence of the church is related to actual assemblies of actual people, then the one who
rarely shows up is hardly a member of the church.
Im sure youve heard this sort of thing before. Maybe youve said it yourself. You can be
a member of a church in good standing and not be physically present in the regular
gatherings very often. In fact, these days, you can be a member of a church while
attending another church most of the time. From a New Testament point of view,
however, this is peculiar, indeed. One was part of the ekklesia in Thessalonica if one was
part of the real gathering because, indeed, ekklesia meant gathering. To say, Im a
part of a church but I dont attend very often would be rather like if you invited me to a
party at your house on Sunday evening, Im having a little gathering of friends on
Sunday night. Can you come? and I answered, Sure, Ill be a part of your gathering,
but I wont be able to attend. Youd be confused by my answer, because being a part of a
gathering means being physically present.
Im belaboring this point because one of the major problems in our churches today is
that many of our members dont actually participate very much. I saw a survey not long
ago that found average church attendance in America to be 30-40% of membership, and
this includes non-member visitors. Its likely, therefore, that only about one-third of
people who associate themselves with a particular church actually associate in reality
with that church on a regular basis. To put it negatively in the vernacular, about two-
thirds of church members dont regularly go to church. But if the ekklesia is meant to be
the actual gathering of people, not some ethereal club, then something is terribly wrong
when the majority of so-called church members arent regularly present with the church.
Please understand, Im not necessarily blaming church members for this problem,
though they surely contribute to it. Churches and church leaders have much to do with
the problem of inactive members. Among other things, we have perpetuated that notion
that church is about joining something where literal attendance isnt assumed.
Moreover, we have often made the content of our assemblies so boring and irrelevant
that I cant blame folks for attending irregularly. All pastors need to ask themselves:
Would I show up on Sunday morning at my church if I didnt have to?
To sum up: When is a church not a church? If we take seriously the New Testament
sense of ekklesia, then our answer is: When the church is not gathered together. To
translate a bit more literally, The assembly is not the assembly when it isnt assembled.
Now, I certainly believe theres a sense in which we can be the church when were
scattered in the world, and Ill have more to say about this later. But, for now, its
important to note that theres something extremely important, and, indeed, essential
about the actual gathering of Christians. Though there may be a derivative sense in
which the church can be scattered, the regular assembly of believers is absolutely crucial
to the health, if not the essence of a church.
The Church as an Alternative Community, Part 1
Let me begin with a brief review. In my last few posts in this series Ive been exploring
the meaning of the Greek word ekklesia, which is ordinarily translated as church. This
translation, however, is not necessarily the best because the English word church
always has religious connotations, whereas ekklesia was a secular word that meant
assembly or gathering. When it was used in the phrase ekklesia of God it referred
to a Christian assembly, but the religious sense came from of God, not fromekklesia.
Moreover, in the common Greek of the New Testament era, ekklesia denoted one
particular kind of assembly, the gathering of citizens in a city to do civic business. In this
sense, ekklesia had a meaning rather like that of the classic New England town meeting.
My last post focused on the implications of the broadest sense of ekklesia. If
anekklesia is an actual meeting of people, then a church exists when Christians gather
together. The physical meeting of believers is essential to a right understanding of
church. This stands as a critique, I suggested, of the American tendency to downplay the
importance of church involvement. In our speech and practice, one can be a member of
a church without showing up for the gatherings. This, however, is out of step with the
basic notion of ekklesia.
With this review in mind, I want to ponder a bit further some implications of ekklesiafor
our understanding of the nature of a church.
A Church as an Alternative, Subversive Community
I want to begin to work on the implications of the more specific meaning of ekklesia: the
gathering of citizens of a particular city. As we have seen previously, that is one of the
meanings of ekklesia that would have been familiar to Christians in cities throughout
the Roman Empire.
In light of this sense of ekklesia, consider the following thought experiment:
Used via Flickr, Creative Commons license.https://www.flickr.com/photos/pdbreen/

Suppose I were to move to New Hampshire in order to plant a new church there. I find a
small town that has only one lifeless church and decide to set up shop there. This town,
Athens by name, is governed, in typical New England fashion, by a town meeting that
gathers periodically to oversee civic affairs. I begin my ministry with a Bible study in my
home. After I have about twenty regulars, I decide to offer weekly worship services in
the school gymnasium. I pass out flyers throughout the town. They proclaim: Come to
the Town Meeting of Athens in God.
How do you think the locals would respond to the name of my church? It isnt hard to
imagine their confusion and likely ire. Why are you calling yourself the Town Meeting
of Athens when we already have one? they would ask. What are you suggesting about
our local government? Are you planning to replace our official town meeting? Are you a
subversive? Or are you merely rude? We dont need your kind around here!
Of course we cant know for sure that the citizens of Thessalonica reacted this way when
they heard about the ekklesia of the Thessalonians in God, but its likely they were at
least confused if not a bit miffed. Surely Paul and the other early Christian church
planters knew what they were getting into by calling their gatherings ekklesiai(plural
of ekklesia). No doubt they realized that referring to the Christian meetings
asthiasoi (religious clubs) or synagogai (assemblies, synagogues) would be less
troublesome. Yet they chose ekklesiai in spite of the potential for that name to cause
trouble for the believers in a city that already had its own ekklesia.
It would seem that the early Christian use of ekklesia was indeed meant to be a bit
subversive, but not in the ordinary manner. The first followers of Jesus were not
intending to overthrow the established ekklesia of their cities. They were not plotting
political rebellion. Yet, the Christians were setting up an alternative society which, as it
grew, would indeed come to upset the apple cart of civic life throughout the Roman
Empire. The Christian ekklesia was not some little religious club off in a corner or some
innocuous gathering fit nicely into Greco-Roman society. Rather, it was a thumbnail
sketch of the kingdom of God. It was a foretaste of the new creation yet to come. And, in
this sense, it was an alternative community, even an unusually subversive one.
Tomorrow Ill explain in more detail how this looked in the first century and how it
might look in ours.
The Church as an Alternative Community, Part 2
In yesterdays post, I explained how the early Christian use of the work ekklesia for their
gathering suggested that the church was an alternative, even a subversive community.
By subversive, I do not mean that Christians were plotting to overthrow the
local ekklesia (governing body of the city) by political or military means. Rather, the
early Christian use of ekklesia did, in some sense, undermine the social order of the
Greco-Roman city, with its ekklesiai (plural of ekklesia, town meeting-like gatherings to
do city business). The Christian ekklesia was meant to be an alternative society, a society
of a radically different order with radically different values. It was a thumbnail sketch of
the kingdom of God.
So, for example, in the ekklesia of God, Jews and Gentiles, so often separated in Roman
society, shared life together as brothers and sisters. Slaves could also be full participants
in the Christian gatherings, enjoying equality in Christ with non-slaves, even with their
masters. Women could actively participate in the gatherings just as long as they didnt
engage in the scandalous behavior of the pagan cults. The theological truth that in Christ
there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male
and female was lived out in the Christian assemblies (Galatians 3:28). Thus, they were
a kind of alternative society, one that implicitly rejected the domineering, separatistic,
and elitist values of the Roman world.
Could it be said that the church in America today is also an alternative society? Perhaps,
in some places and at some times, but I fear these are the exceptions to the rule. The
church in our culture tends to play a very different role than what was once envisioned
by Paul and the earliest Christians. On the one hand, we often reflect the fallen values of
our society rather than the holy values of Gods kingdom. For example, put a church in
the middle of a materialistic culture and, odds are, the church will be materialistic too.
On the other hand, we have often been satisfied to play a comfortable religious role in
society, offering a spiritual narcotic to soothe jangled nerves rather than an alternative
way of living under Gods rule. We dont want to rock the social boat. We want to find
our niche in society so that society will smile upon us. Of course there are some
Christians, who, like the Amish, withdraw from society in order to live as Gods chosen
people. But they hardly reflect the reality of what the Christian ekklesia ought to be in
the world.
Christians who are active in politics, whether on the left or right side of the political
spectrum, may see themselves as the rightful heirs of the early Christian ekklesia.
Indeed, their desire for God to make a difference in this world does reflect what we see
in the New Testament understanding of church. But nowhere in Scripture do we get the
idea that the role of the ekklesia is to directly influence (or replace) the civicekklesia.
Nowhere is it suggested that the Christian assembly should major in speaking truth to
power, other than the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Rather, the power of
the ekklesia to change society comes from the authenticity of its corporate life, which is
a manifestation of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. In the New Testament,
the ekklesia offers, not political advice to the members of the civic ekklesia, but, instead,
a whole new way of living, one that reflects the kingdom of God rather than the empire
of Caesar.

The logo of the Presbyterian Church (USA)

Let me apply what Im saying to my own denomination. If youre not part of the
PC(USA), I expect youll find things here that are relevant to your denomination and/or
local church.
I come from a denomination that has often seen itself as a counselor to the federal
government and other leaders. We pass motions and write position papers,
recommending to our leaders what courses of action they should take on a variety of
issues. There is a sad irony in all of this, because, on the one hand, I dont think many of
our national leaders care one bit about what we recommend. On the other hand, our
efforts to speak truth to power often end up dividing us and impoverishing our own
fellowship. The very thing that should be making a difference in society our life
together as an alternative community is hampered by our misdirected efforts to make
a difference in society through the ministry of pronouncements. How I wish wed stop
trying to recommend to our government how it should act and start, instead, trying
harder to get our own act together.
What would this mean, in practice, for my denomination?
It means we would care much less about the proceedings of our national assemblies
(ekklesiai) and pay much more attention to the regular, tangible, essential gatherings of
our local ekklesiai.
It means that our denominational bodies would put much more energy into nurturing
healthy ekklesiai than we do today. Wed see our denominational purpose primarily in
terms of planting and nurturing churches through the Gospel.
It means we would be open to new denominational structures that support our
mission, rather than holding on to the structures of the past that guarantee our power
but weaken our common life and mission.
It means that we would strive harder to be an alternative society through ourekklesiai,
one that truly reflects the gospel of Jesus Christ, one that shines as a light into our dark
world.
It means that we would see our local gatherings as essential, not only to our
congregational life, but also to the health of our cities.
It means we would care more about doing Gods justice, and less about talking about
justice in ways that divide and weaken our churches, thus enfeebling our efforts to do
justice.
It means that our congregations would embrace our identity as missional churches,
fellowships sent by God to proclaim and live out the reality of his kingdom. Wed be less
committed to our own self-preservation and more committed to offering our neighbors
the good news of Christ, both in word and in our shared life together. (For more on what
it would mean for our churches to be mission, see my essay, The Mission of God and the
Missional Church.)
Im speaking about my denomination here as an example. What I have just said about
the PC(USA) would be relevant to other denominations, and even to non-
denominational bodies. I find it fascinating that many so-called independent and non-
denominational churches today are becoming multi-site churches. The distance
between multi-site and denomination is really very small.
Church Beyond the Local Gathering
Before I finish my discussion of the meaning of the word ekklesia usually translated as
church in the New Testament, I need to say something about the use of ekklesiain
Pauls letters to the Colossians and the Ephesians.

Im a now and then collector of old hymnals. I was glancing through my collection recently to see if I could find any
interesting hymns about the church. I did indeed find a curious selection in The Sunday-School Service and Tune Book. Its
called Beautiful Church, by Rev. E. L. Drown. I find his vision of the church and here were talking largely in terms of an
actual gathering quite fascinating. See the appendix to todays post.

Curiously, neither of these letters are addressed to anekklesia or to a group

ofekklesiai as is the case in Pauls letters to Corinth (both letters), Galatia, and
Thessalonica (both letters). Colossians is addressed to the saints and faithful brothers
and sisters in Christ in Colossae (Col 1:2), while Ephesians was sent to the saints who
are in Ephesus and are faithful in Christ Jesus (Eph 1:1). The greetings at the end of
Colossians reflect the sort of tangible, actual-gathering quality of ekklesia that we have
seen before in Paul. He greets Nympha and theekklesia in her house as well as the
ekklesia of the Laodicieans (4:15-16).
Yet earlier in Colossians we find a different nuance of ekklesia. Let me quote several
verses from the first chapter of this letter:
15 [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 for in him all
things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones
or dominions or rulers or powersall things have been created through him and for
him. 17 He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 He is the
head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he
might come to have first place in everything. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was
pleased to dwell, 20 and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things,
whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross. (1:15-20;
emphasis added)
A few verses later Paul underscores this new sense of ekklesia:
I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what
is lacking in Christs afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church. (1:24)
Ephesians takes this ball from Colossians and runs with it far upfield. In the first
chapter, God raised and exalted Christ,
22 And he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for
the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all. (1:22-23)
In Ephesians 3, God reveals his wisdom to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly
places through the church (Eph 3:10). He concludes the chapter with a stirring
benediction:
20 Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to accomplish abundantly far
more than all we can ask or imagine, 21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus
to all generations, forever and ever. Amen. (3:20-21)
Then, in Ephesians 5, ekklesia shows up six times. Christ is the head of the church, the
body of which he is the Savior (5:23). The church is subject to Christ (5:24). Christ
loved the church and gave himself up for her (5:25). Christ seeks to present the
church to himself in splendor (5:27). He nourishes and tenderly cares for the church
(5:29). Finally, like the unity between husband and wife, so it is with Christ and the
church, something Paul refers to as a great mystery (5:32).
The meaning of ekklesia in Colossians and Ephesians has clearly moved far beyond the
literal gathering of Christians in some location. Now the ekklesia is the body of which
Christ is the head. It appears to be some cosmic reality that transcends ordinary space
and time, and that encompasses far more than a single gathering of believers. Paul
seems to be envisioning some sort of gathering, now used metaphorically rather than
literally, of all Christians on earth and in heaven. This ekklesia has permanence in time
like an actual body. An ekklesia in the regular sense may come and go, but an ekklesia as
a body remains intact over time.
The relationship of the church/body in Colossians and Ephesians and the local church is
not spelled out in detail. Though Paul uses ekklesia in a new and greatly expanded
sense, he can still refer, as I mentioned earlier, to the ekklesia in Nymphas house (or
that meets at her house, Col 4:15) and to the ekklesia of the Laodiceans (4:16). His
specific instruction that his letter be read in the ekklesia of the Laodiceans suggests
that Paul can still use ekklesia in the ordinary sense of the tangible gathering. Yet, at the
same time, the ekklesia is also a much larger and more permanent reality. It is
something that can be spoken of as a body, with Christ as the head.
The use of ekklesia in Colossians and Ephesians offers a fitting segue to the next image I
want to investigate in this series on the church, the image of the body. To this I will turn
in my next post.
Appendix
Beautiful Church by Rev. E. L. Drown
Beautiful Church of Christ below,
Beautiful in this world of woe,
Beautiful Gate to Heaven above,
Beautiful House of God I love;
He, who was slain on Calvary,
Has built this beautiful Church for me.
Beautiful Round, our Festival year,
Beautiful all its scenes appear,
Beautiful Feast, when Christ was born,
Beautiful light the Easter morn;
With Christmas wreaths, and Easter Flowers,
Thank God, this beautiful Church is ours!
Beautiful Baptism, Christ its light,
Beautiful Infants, robed in white,
Beautiful Chants, we love to sing,
Beautiful Hymns to Christ our King;
The path that Saints and Martyrs trod,
The Church that leads us home to God.
Beautiful Church of Christ, our King,
Beautiful offerings let us bring,
Beautiful lives, the Church to adorn
Beautiful love, to Heavens First-born;
With hearts of faith the Saviour see.
Come to this Beautiful Church with me.
From The Sunday-School Service and Tune Book, ed. John C. Hollister (New York: E. P.
Dutton & Co., 1863) p. 155.
A Church as a Body, Part 1
Recap: In this series, What is a Church?, Im trying to discover what the Bible says
about the local church. What is, or better yet, what should this odd collection of people
we call a church be like? What is the nature of a Christian community, according to
Scripture?
So far Ive examined in detail the meaning of the Greek word ekklesia, which is usually
translated as church in our Bibles. In my last post, I noted that Pauls letters to the
Colossians and to the Ephesians talk about the church in terms of a body, with Christ as
the head. This points to the next stop in our tour of New Testament images for church.
But we wont start with Colossians and Ephesians, since these are some of Pauls later
letters. (Yes, Im aware that some scholars believe them to be written by one or more of
Pauls disciples, but Im convinced that they are from Pauls own hand.) Rather, well
start with 1 Corinthians, the oldest extant reference to the gathering of Christians as a
body.

The ruins of ancient Corinth. Photo from holylandphotos.org

Paul wrote 1 Corinthians sometime in the mid-50s A.D. Previously, he had ministered in
Corinth, a city in southern Greece, perhaps for around a year and a half, leaving behind
a collection of believers in Jesus. After Paul left town, these folks continued to meet
together in a regular gathering (ekklesia), or perhaps in several gatherings (ekklesiai)
located in various homes.
Life among the Corinthians Christians wasnt altogether happy, however. Though they
experienced Christs presence and power through the Spirit, they had a hard time
getting along together. After greeting the Corinthian ekklesia and offering a prayer for
them, Paul jumps into the core of their turmoil:
Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all
of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united
in the same mind and the same purpose. For it has been reported to me by Chloes
people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. What I mean is that
each of you says, I belong to Paul, or I belong to Apollos, or I belong to Cephas, or
I belong to Christ. (1 Cor 1:10-12)
Paul was writing to the Corinthians from Asia Minor (modern Turkey). While
ministering there, he had received a visit from Chloes people, who were probably
members of her household, perhaps relatives, servants, or slaves, though we cant be
quite sure. They brought bad news of divisions among the Corinthian Christians. This
may not have been the first Paul had heard of this, because he had also received as
visitors three men from Corinth (1 Cor 16:17). These people had, among other things,
delivered to Paul a letter from the Corinthian Christians (1 Cor 7:1). The combination of
reports and letter concerned Paul greatly, especially as they related the disunity among
the Corinthian believers. So he decided to write the letter we know as 1 Corinthians. (In
fact, however, it was at earliest the second of Pauls letters to these believers; see 1 Cor
5:9).
One of the main things Paul intends to do in 1 Corinthians is to help the immature
Christians there understand who they are together. We would say: Paul wants them to
know who they are as a church. Yet he doesnt do this by drawing out the deeper
implications of the word church (ekklesia). Rather, Paul uses the image of the human
body as a way of explaining how the Corinthian Christians are related to each other, and
therefore how they should in fact treat each other in their gatherings. Their likeness to a
body makes clear the fact that they should be unified rather than divided. It also
suggests how they can achieve unity in a practical way.
Before I get to Pauls teaching about the church as a body, however, I need to say a few
things about Corinthian society, and why this may have led to divisions in the
Corinthian ekklesia. Ill do this in my next post in this series.
A Church as a Body, Part 2
In my last post I began to explain why the Apostle Paul wrote to the Christians in
Corinth, and why he used the image of the human body to help them understand who
they were as Gods people together. The core problem was that of division in the
Corinthian ekklesia, with members treating each other in an unloving manner and
failing to value their connectedness in Christ.
 The more you learn about
Corinthian culture in the first century A.D., the less you are surprised by the problems
occurring among the Christians there. Corinth was located in southern Greece, in a
prime location for travelers and merchants moving across the Mediterranean Sea. Thus
Corinth was a hotbed of economic opportunity, unlike much of the rest of the Roman
Empire. The city had lots of new money and all that often comes with it: pride, boasting,
extravagance, prejudice, resentment, selfishness, sexual adventurism, etc.
Moreover, because of Corinths location and economic vitality, it was a truly
multicultural city, with immigrants from throughout the Roman world. With
multiculturalism came all sorts of adventures and challenges, including foreign
religions, different languages, and conflicting cultural patterns. The religious life of
Corinth was suitably varied, with vestiges of older Greek religion and its mysteries, as
well as lots of newer cults brought by immigrants and visitors. Among those who
brought their religion to Corinth were some Jews who had built a synagogue there. (If
youre looking for more information on the Corinthian culture and its impact on the
Christians there, see the outstanding commentary by Ben Witherington, Conflict and
Community in Corinth.)
Given what Ive said about the diversity and unsettled nature of Corinthian society, it
shouldnt be surprising to learn that the Christian gatherings werent without their
challenges. After all, if you were to bring together people from different socio-economic
brackets, religious backgrounds, and ethnicities, and put them in close fellowship with
each other, and supply only minimal leadership, then you would surely find yourself
with a mess. And thats what Paul experienced with the Corinthians.
Please understand that Im not necessarily criticizing the Corinthian believers for this
situation. After all, they were relatively immature Christians when Paul left their city to
plant churches elsewhere. They didnt have Bibles, since the New Testament wasnt
written yet, and they would have had at most very limited access to scrolls in the local
Jewish synagogue. They didnt have mature Christians to lead them (except perhaps for
a few visiting missionaries, but these could be problematic). They didnt have Christian
books, tapes, CDs, DVDs, or websites. What they had was a memory of Pauls teaching,
some of which they misunderstood or found confusing, and the presence of the Holy
Spirit.
Im not minimizing the value of the Holy Spirit, mind you. Indeed, there is no better
resource for Christian community that the third person of the Trinity! But the problem
is that Christians, especially immature ones, can easily get confused about the Spirit.
They can attribute to the Spirit works of the flesh, or even of demons. They can claim for
themselves spiritual inspiration when none is truly to be found. And this is exactly what
happened at Corinth.
In my next post in this series, Ill say a bit more about the specifics of this Corinthian
confusion about the Spirit, and how it relates both to their culture and to the divisions
within the Corinthian ekklesia. Then well be ready to dive into Pauls teaching on the
church of feet and ears.