by Ken Parker of Church Missions Link

A brief History of the Word, "Church"

Our English word "church" came from a German word (kirk), which in turn was derived from the Greek "kyriakos;" root word "kyrios" (the Lord). "Kyriakos" is the possessive form and means "belonging to the Lord." It expresses a wonderful truth that the church is composed of people belonging to the Lord. Besides referring to people, it often identifies places belonging to the Lord, as people speak of a particular location, a building, as being a church.

Consider the following: In most of our English versions of the New Testament the original Greek word, which ended up translated "church," was not derived from "kyriakos" but "ecclesia," which actually has a much different meaning in English than "church." Its root word "kaleo" means "to call or summon;" its full meaning is "to be summoned or called out for a purpose;" therefore, the original New Testament word - the divinely inspired and intended word, for which translators substituted "church" - is actually rooted more in purpose and process than in people and places that belong to the Lord. Another way of looking at this is to note that the underlying focus of the word "ecclesia" is action and purpose, not so much people or places. Although "ecclesia" is a noun, it has verb-like qualities. It refers to called out people (noun) with a purpose (verb).

The early English translators of the Bible (after Tyndale), for whatever reason, chose to insert the word "church," rooted in "kyriakos" (of the Lord), instead of staying with the original "ecclesia," meaning "assembly" (summoned or called). For his authorized version in 1611, even King James the First continued this practice. In his edict numbered three of fifteen, he specifically directed that the word "church" would be used instead of "congregation" or "assembly" or some other term that might have stressed a group called for a purpose. Few will read a New Testament passage containing the word "church" and identify themselves with others having been called first and foremost for a purpose. That is why there is great value to be gained from thinking of "church" more as a verb with emphasis upon purpose and process, than as a noun mainly focusing on people and place. To put it still another way, church is supposed to be dynamic not static; not just a description of one's identity, location, institution or affiliation. Something is supposed to be happening! To help in illustrating this we need first to consider the dangers and problems that come from focusing mainly upon church as an object to be studied and dissected, instead of seeing its dynamics, the act of fulfilling its purpose.

The Church Is more than a Noun

Up until now, we have been primarily challenging our misconceptions about the word "church" as it appears and is used in Scripture. But let's take a look at how that misconception may affect our understanding today of the Church (the Universal Church) or the local church: What happens, in other words, when we pigeonhole church within the confines of a noun? Let us consider the illustration of a clock with a pendulum swinging back and forth between two poles. We can examine the clock as an object (a noun); study its exquisite detail and fine craftsmanship, its various parts and even its end result - telling time. However, what do we know of its movement (verb)? Probably very little and so, something vital is missed. It is the movement and functioning of the pendulum between its two poles that is as vital to our understanding of the clock as is the knowledge of its origin, design, and components. Similarly, there are distinct limitations we self-impose when viewing church only as a noun and not appreciating its function or action.

In terms of the Church, many think that if they can just describe where it begins and ends and maybe what its component elements are, then they will have a full understanding of it and in such a way they sense they have a sufficient knowledge of it. Turning their attention to the weaknesses and the failures of the Church (to fully be all that it is intended to be), it should become obvious that something might be missing from their definition of the Church; that their understanding of the Church neglected to consider certain dynamics at work.

Unfortunately, understanding the Church, as with the clock, all too often relies upon study of origin, design, components and destiny; hence, ecclesiology becomes just another section of systematic theology. It becomes just another matter to be discussed, defined and sometimes debated. However, if our understanding of the Church includes the realization that it is something that moves and functions and should produce a desired result, if we consider the Church more as a verb than a noun, then that can complete our understanding of it.

Tick or Tock?

Continuing even further with our tendency to view the Church primarily as a noun, consider the following illustration: two still photographs taken of the clock mentioned above. The photos capture the clock precisely as its pendulum reaches a pole. In one photo the pendulum is at the extreme right and in the other all the way left. The photos are examined by several people who like to think of themselves as clock experts, well-qualified because they have studied numerous photos in the past. Some conclude that the photo with the pendulum at the extreme right is the true picture of the clock, while others take the photo with it at the extreme left to be the correct view of the clock. On the basis of the pictures, our clock experts align themselves into two camps having very common yet opposing views of the clock. Both have gotten much correct about the clock. But both have missed something vital about the timepiece. Both have drawn their conclusions based upon fixed and static perceptions. Neither group has considered the dynamic movement of the clock's pendulum. We commit the same infraction when we define the Church using input that is essentially fixed and static, totally ignoring process and function. We end up with extreme views, each contains some truth, but none considers the Church's dynamics.

Closer to home, in the local church, the same applies. The local church is more than a group of believers, meeting in a building. The building may be fixed and static, but God did not intend His people to be fixed and static. They need to be in tune with the dynamics that should be at work. In the case of the clock, the camera's shutter seems to stop the pendulum. So too, many of us would like to stop our churches all the way right or all the way left, which is only possible if we continue to limit our view of our churches to that of a noun. Is it any wonder why so many local churches are weak and ineffective?

Churches with Polar Disorders

Organizational Church Definition:

Let me describe a local church with its "pendulum" stopped all the way right. This church displays the symptoms of what I will call "Organizational Church Definition." This is where so many want the pendulum to freeze. It is their belief that if a church can only be kept in this position it can be understood and communicated as something secure and predictable. Fixing the pendulum in this position results in an ideology that finds expression in five major "isms."

The first of these is institutionalism, where a church becomes a well defined, safe, protected place. . . guaranteed. Membership or commitment becomes paramount. There will be extensive commitment requirements to varied rules and obligations, as well as strong top down management structures. Although institutionalism is found mainly in highly structured organizations, it can also be found in less structured forms; but the common factor is reliance upon the institution to provide security and protection. Members tend to view their church as an object through which or in which people find salvation and protection.

Next is legalism. As already noted with institutionalism, certain rules and expectations will be in place; some churches or organizations require more than others and for different reasons; but nevertheless, there is in this "ism" a tendency toward a greater dependency upon the letter of the law than upon the Holy Spirit. Legalism can demand many things including affirmation of certain doctrinal positions, adherence to certain moral codes or subjection to certain ecclesiastical procedures or authorities. The intent is to define the church in terms of established laws and affirmations making the church an entity (noun) to which people must submit. . . or else.

The third "ism" is dogmatism. By the time we get ensnared by this "ism" the only thing left to do is passing along what has been heard from those who went before - all the tenets of the organization. Dogmatism denies there is any further dynamic to be expected; but rather, insists upon repetition of things long settled. There is, however, a distinction to be made between dogmatic and dogmatism. To be dogmatic speaks of taking a firm stand for something worth believing, which is an acceptable, even highly regarded characteristic. Whereas, dogmatism is a fixed view that most everything has been decided and is in place; therefore, no more study or development is required. "Don't rock the boat; get in line; speak only what has been already spoken," could be dogmatism's mantra. This again happens because the church definition in play is that of a noun.

When logic becomes the principle standard for defining a church, then the "ism" of intellectualism is in operation. If something cannot pass a logic test, then there's no room for its further discussion. Intellectualism makes faith manageable and subservient to the mind. This "ism" is a force multiplier for our first three "isms," especially for dogmatism and legalism. Greater emphasis gets placed upon understanding church (noun) instead of living church (verb); thus, almost assuring a fully entrenched case of Organizational Church Definition. The "pendulum" is far right, and the church has become something structured, static, controlled, and defined.

Finally, there is mechanicalism, which requires well-machined, precise programs running smoothly that collectively look like a church. As long as the programs are staffed and firing on all pistons the church exists. Especially in strong sacramental organizations there is the sense that as long as the procedures occur, then the church exists. It involves the repeatability of formulas, words or prescribed ceremonial motions that guarantee the existence of the church. Even in non-sacramental churches there can be a strong mechanical ideology that contents itself with certain repeated and highly defined procedures.

When these five "isms" are manifested, a church will have stopped its "pendulum," becoming totally lodged in Organizational Church Definition. In so doing, such a church becomes extremely rigid - "a safe place offering protection from the world," those attending might say. Such a church has sculpted itself into a cold, inanimate, unwelcoming structure; it has used all its defining capacity to chisel itself into a monument (noun), which might last a couple generations; its most viable parts (verb), however, have been chipped away and discarded in the process.

Organic Church Discovery:
    At the other extreme, those that seek to stop their church "pendulum" all the way left are struggling with a condition I call "Organic Church Discovery." Just as with the organizational extreme this disorder presents itself in five characteristic "isms."

The first of these is individualism. Rather than defining the church as an institution of worship, this view thinks of church as a pathway to worship through individual discovery. Whereas in the organizational model the danger would be substituting the institution for the Person of Christ, for this extreme the danger is substituting individual experience for the Person of Christ. Church becomes strictly a subjective experience. Instead of seeking safety and predictability in the organization, a church choosing this extreme emphasizes unconditional personal freedom. The only thing that really counts according this view is the internal witness of the Spirit within an individual's life; therefore, each person discovers the meaning of church by his or her own experiences. Church is meaningful and important only as it benefits the individual.

Entwined with the first "ism" is experientialism. Personal experience becomes the impetus of the church. The issue of major importance is a person's subjective experience in the Spirit. This "ism" questions everything and invariably rejects anything that it is strongly suggested, which leads the church away from the doctrinal truths of the Scriptures and makes the experience of the individual equal to or in many cases superior to the Scriptures.

Thirdly, the organic part of this disorder is apparent in mysticism, which is an ideology that looks upon the material world as being of little or no importance; the only thing that matters is that which is spirit. This "ism" finds its roots in another, Gnosticism, which rejects the material altogether and gives credence only to the spiritual world. We can describe the church which fixes the "pendulum" at the organic extreme as being so spiritually minded that they are of no earthly good.

   The fourth "ism," anti-intellectualism, is just the opposite of Organizational Church Definition's reliance upon what can be understood and proven by logical thought. This "ism" goes to the other extreme, denying the need for any intellectual concerns and basically abandoning itself to the irrational. There is even a tendency to regard the anti-intellectual - instinct, emotion, behavior not based upon conscious thought - as being more spiritual than the intellectually perceived. This ideology places more significance upon the things that cannot be explained; therefore, it is fertile ground for still another "ism," fanaticism.

   Finally, Organic Church Discovery will have a large amount of anti-institutionalism. For this "ism" anything that suggests any form of institution or structure becomes suspect and even evil. There is the strong sense that the Spirit forbids any commitment to, or reliance upon, any sort of external form. Structure is resisted or at the most it is tolerated. One of the practical outcomes of this "ism" is a strong negative view toward organizations and the tendency to make the church into a protesting body against the structured and institutional extreme.

Summary

So we see that the two extremes and their "isms" are contrasting views, often resulting in conflict and debate over which is the true form of the church (noun). This polarization of thought is the cause for much of the division within the church and can be directly related to the failure to understand that church is also a verb.

What I mean by the expression, "church is a verb" is that, like the clock, the church must allow the process and function of its pendulous swinging between extremes. It needs the dynamic of the back and forth between the organizational and organic poles in order for it to be all that it is meant to be. It is this back and forth dynamic that blends the strengths of both poles into a movement that powers the workings of the church and gives it a better shot at achieving its purpose.

The more we realize that church is more than a noun - it is also a verb - the more we will understand the importance of keeping the dynamic of the church a central focus. It is the maintaining of a quality church dynamic that links Organic Church Discovery with Organizational Church Definition, and that taps the strengths of both. When this is done, it links the church with, on the one extreme, an object to be known, with the other extreme, an action to be fulfilled.

"Quality Church Dynamics" by Ken Parker will be available early in 2008 (Grace Publications, Inc.)

This book deals with the primary concern of the church in action and how to keep the quality dynamic going and growing.