The Narrow Path Ministries

I am considering posting the following to my blog and I would like to get critiques/comments/things I need to clarify on it before I post it. I know that many (if not most?) on here would agree with me, so I really just want to make sure that it would make sense to others (although you're welcome to disagree with me as well). Anyway, please share any thoughts that you have...

-------------------------------------------------------------------

“What Church Do You Go To?”

Does this question seem odd to anyone else?

If the Church is the same as the Bride of Christ, then the two should be interchangeable in sentences/questions. We should be able to ask, “What Bride of Christ do you go to?” But of course, that doesn’t make any sense at all. We ARE a part of the Bride of Christ, we don’t GO TO “Bride of Christ”. In the same way, we ARE the Church, we don’t GO TO Church.

Now, is this just a matter of semantics? At various times I could have gone either way. But I am thinking now that it is not. Here’s why:

How many times have you talked to someone about following Jesus and their answer was something to the effect of, “yeah, I haven’t been to church in a while and I know I need to start going again.” People associate “church” with being a Christian. Should they? I believe they should, but not in the way they are currently doing so. Should people associate the Bride of Christ with being a Christian and following Jesus? Of course! Thus, they should associate the Church with being a Christian. But because we have so warped the concept of what the Church is, people are associating Jesus with the wrong thing! They are associating following Him with going to the organizations that are called “the church” by most Christians instead of becoming a part of the Bride of Christ with the focus on a relationship with Him, not with the focus on attending a service. This is why I believe we need to change our usage of the word.

Maybe we should say “we are a part of the Church that meets at First Baptist such and such” or “we are a part of the Church that meets at so and so’s house.” But I do believe that we need to restore the term “Church” to what it truly means, and to do all that we can to disassociate the term “Church” from the buildings/organizations themselves.

I think your argument makes sense

In my opinion, it's not very important to stop using the term 'church' in a variety of ways. Dictionaries carry multiple definitions of most words and 'church' is no different. The term can legitimately be used to describe the bride of Christ, a denomination, a local congregation, a building, etc.

But I agree with you that when one's relationship to a specific congregation or building becomes of paramount importance, the ship needs to be righted. And that's what your post really seems to be about. Good stuff.

*need more input*

Hi Rae, I have a slightly different take on it.

Sometimes the word is used in the NT to refer to the church universal. Other times it refers to local assemblies. In fact in Acts 19 the word is used 3 times to refer to a secular assembly. Since the word is used in these various contexts in the NT, I don’t have an issue with anyone saying “I’m going to church (gathering or “assembly of people”)”. When you see a church building and you say something like, “look at that church” then that’s a misuse of the biblical word. Even then it doesn’t bother me that much. It’s just one way the word is used now. I haven’t met a Christian who thinks that the building is the Church itself. The issue I’ve encountered, similar to your stated concern, would be Roman Catholics who equate the institution with the Church itself. RC’s are technically using the word correctly. They are an assembly or “called out” people. The issue is having a presumption that anyone who is a part of the RC organization is automatically part of God’s church.

I live in a very multi-cultural, multi-religion city. I would even guess that cultural Christianity would be in the minority. The vast majority of people do not go to church (I was just reading over what I wrote and realized how I used the word "church" in this sentence ). If you meet someone who attends church(there I go again ), the odds are they are not just a cultural Christian (although it's quite possible). When I was in the southern states, it seemed to me that Christianity was more ingrained in the fabric of the culture and could lead to wrong assumptions. This may account for your concern to make the distinction….. and my lack of concern.

Paul addressed similar cultural issues with his own Jewish brethren who thought that because they had the law that they were somehow righteous in God’s eye.” Rom 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.” We could make a similar distinction by saying it’s not going to church that makes you a Christian but rather being a part of God’s church.

Of course this does not address the possibility that there may be entire “churches” where not one person is a part of God’s church or "The Bride".

I guess living in Texas is a little different from life elsewhere (and I've never lived elsewhere, so Texas is all I know). I have met so many people here (Catholics and Protestants) who do think of the building, or getting involved in an organization when they hear the word "church".

I as well see local assemblies in the New Testament, and I am not trying to remove that. But what I do see in the NT is that anywhere that the word "church" is used, you can replace it with the "Bride of Christ" or with the word "people."

My point in what I wrote is that maybe we should go back to using the term "church" how it was originally meant... interchangeable with "people" or the "Bride of Christ."

You wouldn't say, "I am going to Family this year for the holidays," as if "family" were a place in and of itself. You might say, "I am going to meet with my family," or "I am going to my family's house." In the same way, "I am going to Church this Sunday" just doesn't make sense. "I am going to meet with the church in our city" or "I am a part of the church in Dallas" or "I meet with the church at Bill's house" would seem more appropriate.

Hey Rae,

I listened to The God Journey podcast this weekend, and they were discussing the same thing. Here's a link if you want to listen:

The God Journey

Rae,

It would be most interesting to see how ekklesia is translated in other languages. I suspect we would see it translated by a word equivalent to "congregation" or "assembly". I'm going to ask a missionary when I get the opportunity.

We can thank King James for the problem. He would not allow the translators to translate certain words into English.

From "Lewis' History of the English Translations of the Bible" we find item No. 3 of "the following rules.....to be carefully observed", given to the translaters by King James:

3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation, &c.

This of course included baptizo. How could they allow that to be translated? And now we have great confusion over the meaning of "church" (and baptize). They like this; they can promote the idea that the hierarchy is the church rather than the people.

Homer wrote

We can thank King James for the problem. He would not allow the translators to translate certain words into English.

Homer, I’ve often wondered why the word ekklesia was translated as “assembly” in the KJV only when talking about a secular group and never when Christians were mentioned. You can see the three times it was translated “assembly” in Acts 19:32,39,41. If what you’re saying about King James is true then that would explain it.

Does it make sense, Rae, to state, "We went to the assembly last Sunday?"

Hi Rae,

You might be interested in a thread entitled Was a synagogue owned? here on Church Life with the most recent post being 5/14/06. We discussed buildings and assemblies of people there.

livingink