HOUSE CHURCH ARTICLES
SHOULD APOSTLES STOP USING THE WORD 'CHURCH'?
NEED THIS TRANSLATED INTO ANOTHER LANGUAGE? - You can translate this web site into many other languages by clicking HERE and inserting the URL of the page you wish to see in another language, and note which language you wish to have it translated into!
SHOULD APOSTLES STOP USING THE WORD 'CHURCH'?
- by Dick Scoggins 8/8/06(of Fellowship of Church Planters) - used with permission
Dick Scoggins is a founder of the Fellowship
of Church Planters (Rhode Island, USA) and has served as a trainer for Frontiers.
He is the author, with George Patterson, of Church Multiplication Guide (William
Carey Library).
"In my recent article on “Petrine and
Pauline Apostles” I mentioned that one of the reasons I was embracing
the term “apostle” was because I was thinking about dropping the
use of the word “church” and thus could no longer use the word “church
planter” to describe myself. This article is to clarify that statement.
Since 1975 I have been involved actively in church planting and have called
myself a church planter since 1985. I have planted churches on two continents
and trained church planters on 4 continents. But over the last 5 years I have
grown increasingly uncomfortable in using the word “church” to describe
what the teams I work with are trying to birth.
Let me make clear that I am absolutely committed to building the Kingdom of
God through establishing transforming communities. Jesus commanded us to “make
disciples of the nations” and showed us how to do that when he started
the first transforming community by calling out 12 disciples and working with
them over a period of 3 years. The result was individuals who had been transformed
in the context of community and a community of believers that was, itself,
transformed. Jesus, at the close of his ministry says “go and do likewise”
to paraphrase Mt. 28:18-20. The book of Acts recounts how the disciples went
out and discipled the nations by starting such transforming communities. Discipleship
was never essentially a individual process since the product of discipleship
was loving God and loving ones neighbor.
So, please here me, that I am not at all saying that apostles should change
our focus from communities to something else. But rather than using the word
“church” actually gets in the way of doing this because of all the
connotations that come with the word “church”.
Let me reiterate: I believe that community is the essence of the gospel. God
created us not fundamentally as individuals, but rather in and for community.
In Genesis 1:27 God says “Let us make man in our own image…male
and female he created him”.
The only time God says it is not good in the creation account is when he has
created Adam, but not Eve. He created man to be the image bearer of the triune
God and an individual man could not be sufficient. God is eternally in community
and He created Man as a communal being.
In the Garden of Eden, God walked with man and was preparing man to “reproduce,
multiply, fill the earth and subdue it” thus joining man in His great
task of displacing the devil and his demons from the earth where he had been
cast down.
So we see that God had created man in his image (communal) with the purpose
that this community would reproduce and fill the earth. In Genesis 2 God explicitly
creates family as the basis of community through which man will join with
God in the great task of displacing the Kingdom of Darkness with the Kingdom
of God.
The fall of man in Genesis 3 may seem to have undone this plan of God, but
throughout Genesis God reiterates His plan of subduing the earth through familywhether
Adam and Eve, Abel, Noah, or Abraham. Note in Genesis 12:3 he uses the word
for “clan” –a word tied to family, not “nation” as
is sometimes translated. Even the Messiah comes through a family line (David),
and those who come to faith become part of God’s family (children of
Godcalling him “Father”).
Families are given freedom to express the myriad aspects of a loving, relational,
heavenly Father, who exists from before eternity in a triune community. God
allowed families and tribes to form nations and culturesall of which
reflect some aspects of an infinite, eternal, communal God. Families and like
flowers; there is no single expression of the word “flower”. But
rather all the flowers of the earth reflect the an aspect of the creative
expression of the God who created “flowers”!
Families are not meant to be institutionally uniform anymore than a garden
should be uniform. There may be uniformity in nurseries where plants are raised,
but a garden is to be creative. No two should look the same. The same is true
of families. God created them to reflect the infinite relationship that a
living God can have with his creation.
So this, perhaps, lays the main reason why I want to drop the word “church”.
The word itself connotes an institutionalism. “Church” is primarily
an institution where certain things happen; a building where certain ceremonies
occur. Rather than celebrating the infinite ways community can be lived out,
norms and structure replace love and creativity.
I think the word “church” was a good contextual word for a modern
world where the goal was to find “truth” and uniform, reproducible,
scientific ways to do things “right”. Then we do it over and over
again producing an institutional sameness.
So why change now?
1. The word “church” is actually not a good translation of the Greek
“ecclessia”. Wycliffe, who translated the first English version
of the Bible, translated the word as “congregation” which is actually
a pretty good translation. It has no institutional overtones. However when
King James authorised the King James version, he had nearly 100 years of watching
the reformation and saw the problems that unauthorized groups created for
governments (like the anabaptists, etc.). He undoubtedly had influence on
what words were used in the translation. For instance, not wanting his tax
men to have trouble we find the interesting word “publican” replacing
the derogotory “taxgather” in the KJV (e.g.Mt. 18:17). A publican
is a “keeper of a pub”clearly not connected to the original
word.
In that case of ecclesia, the word “church” from the Scottish word
“kirk” meaning “temple” was chosen rather than Wycliffe’s
“congregation”. The connotative differences are huge. One can go
to “church” (temple) but not to “congregation”. So one
of the reasons that I am keen to drop the word is that it is not really a
Biblical wordany more than “publican” is.
But beyond that is the institutional connotations that go with the word “church”.
Usually when I ask people how their church is, they describe the meetings
and other institutional apects of their “organization”. Even when
I started house churches and asked how the church is doing, they would evaluate
the meetings.
Once I got so frustrated with this, I asked what they would think if we as
a family only saw each other once a week at the Sunday family dinner. We had
a great dinner and Mom put a lot of thought and work into it. But we never
saw each other at all the rest of the week. No matter how great the weekly
meal, we would not be a good family. What goes on outside of the meeting is
more important that what happens at the meeting.
2. In a post modern world sameness will not hold the same value and attraction
that it did in a modern world. Creativity and distinct, unique expressions
of relationship and love will take on greater importance. Institutions will
not be valued and are likely to be viewed suspiciously
3. We used the word “church” with house church since it validated
what we were doing as “authentic” i.e. our expression of “church”
was a valid form of church especially when looking in the New Testament where
they were all house churches. Now that House Church is becoming a common expression
and not needing authentication, I am concerned that “House Church”
will become as institutional as larger expressions of the Kingdom.
For these reasons I think apostles who are engaged in establishing transforming
communties need to question whether the term “church” has outlived
its use.
So what to call these communities of the Kingdom? We could call them just
that. But I think a spectrum of terms may be helpful so that we avoid institutionalisation.
We could call these communities “transforming communities”, or we
could call them “Kingdom Families”. Other possibilities would be
“Jesus Families”, “Jesus Communities”, “Families
of God”, “God’s Household”, and all combinations thereof.
It may be that you think that dropping the word “church” and using
other expressions for the type communities God wants to birth is a very small
adjustment. But having spoken for several months on these issues around the
world I can testify that it is mot a small adjustment. It has made a huge
difference in my own thinking, and has been hard on those with whom I have
shared.
Like flowers, my hope is that the next era of the Kingdom will produce a myriad
of expressions of Kingdom families and communities; ones that will be effective
lights to those who live in darkness as well as transforming the members."
Great Commission Worship & Arts Center / Ethnic Worship & Arts Focus / Worship & Arts INDEX
Missions Resources / House Churches / Great Commission Business / Canada Page / Vancouver Page
Lower Mainland Ministries / Fun Stuff / Misc / Articles & Resources for Christians / Spiritual Growth / Research Resources / Travel / Humour
Listening Room / International Recipes / Worship / Refugees / Health / Disabilities Resources / Seasons
Relationships / Computer-Software