A Year on the Ash Heap: Travels with Job

Following the excellent post by Barry Jenkins (see his comment under the Today’s Word “Paradigm Shift”), I thought it might be useful to put back up an article that I posted on the old web site.  Here it is:

The Church

Today Christians stand at a significant crossroads in spiritual growth. On the one hand, evangelistic efforts across the globe seem to be producing record numbers of converts, especially in third-world countries. On the other hand, main line denominations in formerly Christian nations are dwindling. There is a deep concern that the church as we have known it in Western history is in crisis. It’s theology might be sound, but it often seems to be on life-support when it comes to transformational living.

Furthermore, while pastors and leaders readily acknowledge the universality of the “Church”, its spiritual unity and its single head in the Messiah, denominational controversies and an emphasis on the “local” congregation continue to force believers into an “either-or” decision crisis. Churches rarely pool efforts, funds and people in order to accomplish significant cultural change. Most of the time it’s the “not-invented-here” syndrome. Unity has been redefined to mean my local church congregation, a far cry from the kind of unity that Jesus prayed for on the night of His crucifixion.

None of this would matter at all if it weren’t for one overriding fact. When we read about the kind of church described in the New Testament, we know that something is wrong. Something’s missing. That seems to be the general consensus of a large number of those who attend church regularly. We’re not quite sure what it is, but we know that our expectations are often greater than the actual delivery. We want that mysterious something – desperately – and so we travel from congregation to congregation, searching, hoping, waiting for the final spiritual enlightenment that will confirm, “You’re home.” What is most discouraging in this quest is the picture painted of the early church in the book of Acts. It seems more vibrant, more filled with the Spirit, more apostolic. Miracles accompany its proclamation. Power and deep humility attend its leaders. “Why can’t we have that?” we complain. “What’s wrong with us?”

When people don’t know what to do, they do what they know. Like good Christians, we go back to the planning table and come up with another program, another series of sermons or another revival meeting. We see change, but it doesn’t last. And back we go again. We spend millions of dollars and hours on things that don’t seem to really make a fundamental difference. We need to face the hard facts. Unless we radically rethink what we call “church,” all the evidence suggests it is not going to get better. Maybe there is another way.

We could start by noticing some important connections in the words of Scripture (where else? J). First, the Greek word usually translated “church” is ekklesia. You undoubtedly know that. But did you know that the word ekklesia is never used in the gospels (except in Matthew 16:18 and 18:17). You might think that this only means that Jesus and the disciples used the word “synagogue,” but you would be wrong. The only place where the early Christians used the word synagoge (which is also a Greek term) is in James 2:2. Now, this should make us pause. If Jesus doesn’t use the word ekklesia, and the disciples do not use the word synagoge, then how what does this tell us about their understanding of what the church is?

Let’s add two more crucial facts. The Old Testament uses two different words for the religious gathering of God’s people. They are almost interchangeable – almost, but not quite. The first is qahal. This word means “assembly” and is used for nearly any kind of gathering, even gatherings in rebellion against God. However, in connection with Israel, it is especially the assembly for religious purposes such as the giving of the Law (see Deuteronomy 9:10). There is another Hebrew word, ‘edah, which also generally means “assembly” and is often translated “congregation.” But, while qahal can be translated by both Greek words, ekklesia and synagoge, ‘edah is never translated as ekklesia. Only the Greek synagoge is used to translate both qahal and ‘ehad. That means that ekklesia can be an assembly, but it can never be a congregation (in Hebrew). Only a synagoge can be both an assembly and a congregation (although we must also note that synagoge almost always translates a derivative of qahal).

This linguistic detective work starts to point us toward something important. There is a clue here that the modern church lost along the way.

Hebrew culture used qahal for a very important concept: gathering to accept the covenant. Qahal is a word that carries the idea of calling by appointment to a particular purpose of God. This is an event, not a place! It is focused on God’s purpose, not our participation. However, when it comes to “congregation,” the word is almost always ‘edah. One hundred and twenty-three times this word is found in the Torah. It is about the unity of those appointed, not about the individuals gathered. It is not bound to a special place or time. It is always about a special people appointed as one unified whole before God.

Isn’t it interesting that ekklesia, the word that we usually take to mean “the church” is never connected to this Hebrew idea of perfect unity in appointment and purpose? Now we see that the two Hebrew words for “assembly” are not quite the same. Qahal focuses on the event of experience with God. ‘Edah focuses on the unity of the whole people whom God appoints. Ekklesia, the Greek word translated “church” is never ‘edah, only qahal.

Since the Hebrew word for synagoge is q’helah (from qahal), Paul would have used this expression in his dialogue and writings to Hebrew-speaking believers. Therefore, when Paul uses the term ekklesia, he is not thinking in Greek. He is thinking is Hebrew and he invests the meaning of the Greek word ekklesia with all the attributes of the Hebrew q’helah.

But this raises a problem. We usually think of ekklesia as “those called out of the world to serve God.” In fact, ekklesia literally means “called out” (from ek and kaleo). But the Greek word ekklesia is never found in other Greek literature with this meaning. In Greek, ekklesia was used to describe any convened assembly of citizens for social and legal purposes. Ekklesia was never used for a religious gathering. What this means is that the use of ekklesia in the New Testament cannot be based in classic Greek. The meaning of ekklesia must be derived from the Hebrew background implicit in Paul’s orientation. Robert Gorelik makes the point crystal clear. If Paul uses ekklesia in all his letters to describe what we call “church,” why is it that no one confused this word with an ordinary town meeting? The answer is obvious. Paul’s audience knew that ekklesia was not to be understood in the classic Greek sense. It was rather to be understood in the Hebrew sense – as an assembly for the purpose of religious expression – namely, a q’helah.

What this tells us in critically important. The background, theology and practice of the early “church” is found in Hebrew thought, not in Greek thought. In other words, Paul is addressing congregations of believers who are Hebrew-thinking followers of the Messiah, and who stand in the same line as the Hebrew use of qahal and ‘edah in the Old Testament.

What can we conclude? We can only point the direction since there is so much more to consider, but we can say at least this much. It appears as though the Hebrew idea behind ekklesia is about a “happening”, an event, not a place. A church is a gathering event called by God for His purposes. It doesn’t appear to be a routine meeting in a particular place with a set agenda. Remember that qahal is found in the idea of a gathering of soldiers for war. It is the purpose that precipitates the gathering, not the other way around. Church, from a Hebrew perspective, is all about why we come together, not about where we come together.

Recently I read a comment by a man who was distraught because he didn’t seem able to plant a new church in his community. You can see how his thinking has been affected by the idea that church is a place. Maybe we should have church rather than go to church. How much more might we accomplish for the Kingdom if we began to think of church as a gathering event for a godly purpose rather than a building?

But there is more. When we point in this direction, we realize that there is an element in the Hebrew idea that is not present in the Greek word ekklesia. ‘Edah – the unity of the gathered assembly – is never picked up by the word ekklesia. The event of church does not entail unity. The event is focused on the reason for the event, namely, the call of God. We gather because God calls us to gather, and we gather because He has something to tell us and something for us to do. But that is not the same as being in unity. If we are going to experience ‘edah, our gathering cannot focus on the individuals in the group. It must focus on the whole group all together. Does this give you a clue about Paul’s comments on sharing the single mind of Christ or Jesus’ comments on unity?

The “church” is a unity, a single body (remember Paul’s body language) where every individual fades into the whole, integrated unit, where no single member is any more valuable than any other and where every member is vital to the functioning of the whole. ‘Edah is a body without hierarchy, without “professionals”, without status-seekers and without individual glorification. It is the one assembly, doing all together what God commands.

What directions begin to emerge? Perhaps we need to re-think “church.” If the Bible’s view of church is an event called for a purpose operating as a single, completely unified body, a lot of things will have to change.

There is one more pointer. L. Coenen says, “If one compares the two Hebrew words, it becomes clear . . . that ‘edah is the unambiguous and permanent term for the covenant community as a whole. On the other hand, qahal is the ceremonial expression for the assembly that results from the covenant . .”

Only one of these ideas is captured in the word ekklesia, that is, the ceremonial expression of the assembly. If that is true, then “church” is not only event oriented, it is also a formal occasion built on ritual. So, God calls His people. They gather (the event) under certain, prescribed ordinances (the ritual) for a particular purpose (the reason for the gathering). This is qahal. The result is q’helah.

But there is also ‘edah. In order for the church to also be ‘edah, it must belong, not as individuals, but as a whole unit, to God’s permanent, covenant family. Let this sink in a bit. The conclusion is shocking. The covenant is not about individuals. I do not have a personal covenant relationship with God. My covenant relationship with God is based in the community as a whole. Furthermore, church as ‘edah is not for the non-believer. If you are not part of the covenant family, you are not part of this assembly – and you shouldn’t be there!

This is a dagger in the heart of the “seeker-friendly” idea of church. The seeker-friendly church is not a church from the Bible’s point of view. It is a meeting of mixed minds and motives. It is equivalent to the crowd who heard Peter preach on the day of Pentecost. He had only one message – Repent! All of the rest of the teaching, training and equipping is for the family of the covenant community, not for the outsiders.

Now we might realize why our churches are so bland and anemic. First, we have the wrong audience. When we mix family and strangers, what kind of signals are we sending? How can you gather at God’s call for His purposes when half your crowd doesn’t even know Him? How can you be of single-minded unity when your audience is filled with rebels? What made you think that God even called those idol-worshippers to His event? In our efforts to make the “church” relevant, we have destroyed it. We no longer gather at His request to receive His purposes and act as a single body in the world. We gather in a meeting, filled with all kinds of agendas, rebellious enemies standing side-by-side with devoted followers. And we hope to encounter God!? How crazy is that? We have converted the “church” from its Hebrew roots to a truly Greek base. It is now nothing more than a convened assembly.

Secondly, not only is the contemporary, seeker-friendly church the wrong mix, it usually doesn’t fit the proper “event for purpose” direction. The local church is a place, governed by a hierarchy, committed to a schedule, run by programs. It can hardly be called a spontaneous event resulting from the call of God for a particular purpose. In fact, the more we move in the direction of making the “church” a locally operating organization, the less we seem to be moving toward God’s plan. God’s ways are not our ways. Why should we think that His view of church would be merely human organizational capacity set to the melody of hymns?

Our churches are filled with the great unwashed, and, as a result, our focus is anything but pure. Of course, we must reach to the lost, but separate church from meetings and you just might discover that the body is nourished.

Ekklesia reminds us that the true church is called out. But unless we understand the Hebrew background behind this Greek word, we will only be a half-church. The ekklesia is called by God for the purpose of accomplishing His will on earth. That’s pretty clear. That call has been in place since Israel crossed the Red Sea. The church is not a new invention of the first century. It is as old as God’s choice to bring into existence a people called to be His own.

Furthermore, the assembly of the children of God is not a collection of individuals. It is a single unit, undifferentiated before God, a covenant community. If the church is only an ekklesia, then it is only half of what God intended. If the church is only about its called-out purpose, then it is only a fifty percent operation.

Think of it like this: The outward function of the church is to complete the mission of the Lord on earth. We are called to that task. That’s what the ekklesia is all about. If your chosen assembly of worship is not fulfilling the mission of the Lord, then you are not an ekklesia. But, there is another part. There is something more than just proclaiming the good news. There is ‘edah, a word that describes the homogenization of the church, the undifferentiated unity of all the pieces in covenant community. Paul does have a word for this in Greek. That word is “body”. A church is not just the called-out ones with a purpose. A church is also the unity of all the individuals in a single body.

Paul’s thought is very much like the new clothes of the new man. The clothing is the outside purpose-driven view. The “body” is the inside unity of every member that gives shape to the clothes. If you (plural) are an assembly, an ekklesia, without a body, an ‘edah, then you have only half of God’s design in place. You will know that it is only half the story because you will know that there is something missing in spite of the purpose-driven activity. You will know that the inside is empty. There is no body under the clothing.

This is the biggest problem in the Western church. The body has shriveled and died. The clothes are draped on a mannequin. There is no unified, singular, Spirit-filled manifestation of God underneath the activity. It’s just outward, glorious emptiness.

The covenant community does not exist as the local assembly. Just as God’s covenant does not apply to the individual, so it does not apply to the collection of individuals who meet at some building and call themselves a church. The covenant community is the whole family of God. There is one God. There is one covenant. There is only one covenant community. Perhaps it’s time for us to start thinking and acting according the Deuteronomy 6:4, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is your God. The Lord is One.”

Skip Moen

April 2008